One more thought before I go to conduct my afternoon.
The smoking age going up by a year every year.
Proof of age is currently only a fairly low level identity thing limited to the young. As time goes on, 30, 40, 50 year olds will be having to prove their age to smoke.
Maybe it will still be low level, but it could also be seen as a serious use case for identity cards.
Indeed and one wonders if this could be a trojan for just that eventuality. After all, how on earth does a shopkeeper tell if someone is 45 or 46 when they come to buy cigarettes?
OTOH smokers do look older than they really are in calendar years, above a certain age.
One more thought before I go to conduct my afternoon.
The smoking age going up by a year every year.
Proof of age is currently only a fairly low level identity thing limited to the young. As time goes on, 30, 40, 50 year olds will be having to prove their age to smoke.
Maybe it will still be low level, but it could also be seen as a serious use case for identity cards.
I'm not convinced by one year at a time; 21 now and 25 in 4 years' time would be a better start, perhaps alongside significant price hikes, and followed in due course by making the relevant substances probihibited drugs.
Why do people insist on sticking their noses in on other people's legal business? Small mindedness and puritanism on steroids.
Why do people have a problem with programmes to improve health, and prevent those who say "Waah ! Leave me on my own !" imposing unnecessary costs on the Health System?
According to the anti-smoking lobby ASH, smoking costs the NHS £2.5 billion a year According to HMRC smoking raises £8.8 billion a year in tax.
Your costs argument is bullshit.
Depends what they'd spend the money on otherwise, mind. Fresh fruit? Alcohol?
If it’s true that the government are indeed rushing to sell off the land compulsorily purchased, over years, at HUGE cost, for the sections of HS2 above Crewe, that’s a genuine act of national sabotage – just to make sure a future government can’t override Rishi’s decision.
Sounds like a possible case for Labour's proposed compulsory purchase/reduction of planning gain windfall policy.
(Though they were briefing last week that had been de-prioritised.)
Exactly what I was thinking. All Labour have to do is to make an announcement now.
One more thought before I go to conduct my afternoon.
The smoking age going up by a year every year.
Proof of age is currently only a fairly low level identity thing limited to the young. As time goes on, 30, 40, 50 year olds will be having to prove their age to smoke.
Maybe it will still be low level, but it could also be seen as a serious use case for identity cards.
I'm not convinced by one year at a time - too complex and pfaffy; 21 now and 25 in 4 years' time would be a better start, perhaps alongside significant price hikes, and followed in due course by making the relevant substances probihibited drugs.
(If there is no such thing as a minor crime as I just heard, why is he running away from parking enforcement to prevent wheelchair users and others being forced into dangerous traffic?)
Wouldn't that mean that everyone who is 18-20 now is stuck in an ongoing loop of being able to smoke every few years, and then banned again?
Andy Street confirms he will stay as mayor and a member of the conservative party
Shame. I disagree with him on HS2 but it would have been good to see him make a stand on a point of principle he believes in. He could very easily have quit as a Tory and still continued to do his job as mayor - probably would have got him more support as well.
If it’s true that the government are indeed rushing to sell off the land compulsorily purchased, over years, at HUGE cost, for the sections of HS2 above Crewe, that’s a genuine act of national sabotage – just to make sure a future government can’t override Rishi’s decision.
They can just build copies of the Alexandra Road Estate over all the cancelled train lines. Road and parking underneath, cycle and walk on top - transport and housing for a brighter future.
One more thought before I go to conduct my afternoon.
The smoking age going up by a year every year.
Proof of age is currently only a fairly low level identity thing limited to the young. As time goes on, 30, 40, 50 year olds will be having to prove their age to smoke.
Maybe it will still be low level, but it could also be seen as a serious use case for identity cards.
I'm not convinced by one year at a time; 21 now and 25 in 4 years' time would be a better start, perhaps alongside significant price hikes, and followed in due course by making the relevant substances probihibited drugs.
Why do people insist on sticking their noses in on other people's legal business? Small mindedness and puritanism on steroids.
Why do people have a problem with programmes to improve health, and prevent those who say "Waah ! Leave me on my own !" imposing unnecessary costs on the Health System?
According to the anti-smoking lobby ASH, smoking costs the NHS £2.5 billion a year According to HMRC smoking raises £8.8 billion a year in tax.
Your costs argument is bullshit.
Depends what they'd spend the money on otherwise, mind. Fresh fruit? Alcohol?
Black market ciggies with the Government getting none of the tax money.
Andy Street confirms he will stay as mayor and a member of the conservative party
Shame. I disagree with him on HS2 but it would have been good to see him make a stand on a point of principle he believes in. He could very easily have quit as a Tory and still continued to do his job as mayor - probably would have got him more support as well.
Indeed.
Interesting hatchet job by Jen Williams on the Graun feed - at 11.22
"Jennifer Williams, the Financial Times’ northern correspondent, explains why people in her region are unlikely to be impressed. There is a long history of the north being promised transport upgrades that never materialise, she says." and she goes on ...
One more thought before I go to conduct my afternoon.
The smoking age going up by a year every year.
Proof of age is currently only a fairly low level identity thing limited to the young. As time goes on, 30, 40, 50 year olds will be having to prove their age to smoke.
Maybe it will still be low level, but it could also be seen as a serious use case for identity cards.
I am now imagining a 65 year old hanging around outside a newsagent, trying to persuade a passing 70 year old to buy them cigarettes.
If it’s true that the government are indeed rushing to sell off the land compulsorily purchased, over years, at HUGE cost, for the sections of HS2 above Crewe, that’s a genuine act of national sabotage – just to make sure a future government can’t override Rishi’s decision.
They can just build copies of the Alexandra Road Estate over all the cancelled train lines. Road and parking underneath, cycle and walk on top - transport and housing for a brighter future.
Or even the cancelled motorways, like the Southwyck Estate
One more thought before I go to conduct my afternoon.
The smoking age going up by a year every year.
Proof of age is currently only a fairly low level identity thing limited to the young. As time goes on, 30, 40, 50 year olds will be having to prove their age to smoke.
Maybe it will still be low level, but it could also be seen as a serious use case for identity cards.
I'm not convinced by one year at a time; 21 now and 25 in 4 years' time would be a better start, perhaps alongside significant price hikes, and followed in due course by making the relevant substances probihibited drugs.
Why do people insist on sticking their noses in on other people's legal business? Small mindedness and puritanism on steroids.
One word: pensionerism. As Britain ages, it will be dominated by proposals that protect people from themselves. See also infantilisation of adults, see also weak men create hard times, see also gambling repression. You will note that very few people are discussing whether this should be done, they are discussing how to do it.
One more thought before I go to conduct my afternoon.
The smoking age going up by a year every year.
Proof of age is currently only a fairly low level identity thing limited to the young. As time goes on, 30, 40, 50 year olds will be having to prove their age to smoke.
Maybe it will still be low level, but it could also be seen as a serious use case for identity cards.
I am now imagining a 65 year old hanging around outside a newsagent, trying to persuade a passing 70 year old to buy them cigarettes.
Trying, but failing, to imagine a "newsagent" existing in 2060 ...
One more thought before I go to conduct my afternoon.
The smoking age going up by a year every year.
Proof of age is currently only a fairly low level identity thing limited to the young. As time goes on, 30, 40, 50 year olds will be having to prove their age to smoke.
Maybe it will still be low level, but it could also be seen as a serious use case for identity cards.
I'm not convinced by one year at a time - too complex and pfaffy; 21 now and 25 in 4 years' time would be a better start, perhaps alongside significant price hikes, and followed in due course by making the relevant substances probihibited drugs.
(If there is no such thing as a minor crime as I just heard, why is he running away from parking enforcement to prevent wheelchair users and others being forced into dangerous traffic?)
Wouldn't that mean that everyone who is 18-20 now is stuck in an ongoing loop of being able to smoke every few years, and then banned again?
I didn't think the announcement of the Shipley Bypass would be seen as the key policy pledge of the speech.
Oh, and if this new station in Bradford is on the site previously proposed, and just replaces Interchange, it will mean a longer walk from Forster Square than at present. What is needed is a single, central station, not half a new station further away from the city centre.
Listening to the media it seems there is support with the public in the north
I would suggest Sunak needs to gather the northern mayors at no 10 to agree the way forward and to have regular meetings
Where is labour's response ?
It really is a disgrace that after 13 years of lefty government the Labour party haven't got an immediate response to the brave policies of the leader of the opposition.
I didn't think the announcement of the Shipley Bypass would be seen as the key policy pledge of the speech.
Oh, and if this new station in Bradford is on the site previously proposed, and just replaces Interchange, it will mean a longer walk from Forster Square than at present. What is needed is a single, central station, not half a new station further away from the city centre.
You know the Tories - the only kind of Union they like is the one with the UJ stuck on top. Trades Unions, Union Stations, forget it.
The more you look at Sunaks speech, the worse it is. The A level reforms aren’t schedule to happen for 10 years, and the HS2 decision to sell the already purchased land (as well as scrapping it) looks like a form of national sabotage for Labour to clear up
You don't have to answer the question below out loud, just do it in your head.
"Do you believe him?"
That is why I said he has to have regular dialogue with the northern mayors and work together
Tories having regular dialogue with any devolved administration if it's not a Tory one? Pull the other plonker, chum (as a railway worker once said to me).
Okay that’s actually funny - but they shouldn’t have had a posh boy do the narration. Plenty of actors with Manchester or Glasgow accents that would have made it better.
Listening to the media it seems there is support with the public in the north
I would suggest Sunak needs to gather the northern mayors at no 10 to agree the way forward and to have regular meetings
Where is labour's response ?
I don't think the Northern Mayors are in any mood to compromise. What the Northern Mayors wanted was HS2 and NPR. Now they are being offered neither. I don't see where the space for agreement is.
Okay that’s actually funny - but they shouldn’t have had a posh boy do the narration. Plenty of actors with Manchester or Glasgow accents that would have made it better.
"But, in an interview being broadcast now, he says he is staying in part because Sunak has respected his concerns. He says he thinks people in the West Midlands will be better served by his continuing to stay in the party and working with Sunak on transport improvements."
Next West Midlands mayoral election is 2 May 2024.
Does that comment really cross the line into illegality?
There’s no suggestion that Fox ever touched an ULEZ camera, and he’s not been arrested for actual criminal damage.
One gets the impression that Fox is well-funded and could take this to the Supreme Court.
How would criminal damage of ULEZ cameras be compared to criminal damage to statues a few years ago?
With reference (only) to your final query, and without implying who has or has not been doing it: an obvious difference is that statues are not a functional instrument of government by which it applies legal sanctions where needed.
Does that comment really cross the line into illegality?
There’s no suggestion that Fox ever touched an ULEZ camera, and he’s not been arrested for actual criminal damage.
One gets the impression that Fox is well-funded and could take this to the Supreme Court.
How would criminal damage of ULEZ cameras be compared to criminal damage to statues a few years ago?
Terrorism Act 2000 ?
The Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism, both in and outside of the UK, as the use or threat of one or more of the actions listed below
. serious damage to property;
The use or threat of action, as set out above, which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism regardless of whether or not the action is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public.
Action includes action outside the United Kingdom.
It is important to note that in order to be convicted of a terrorism offence a person doesn't actually have to commit what could be considered a terrorist attack. Planning, assisting and even collecting information on how to commit terrorist acts are all crimes under British terrorism legislation.
Fox has NOT threatened to use firearms or explosives though
One more thought before I go to conduct my afternoon.
The smoking age going up by a year every year.
Proof of age is currently only a fairly low level identity thing limited to the young. As time goes on, 30, 40, 50 year olds will be having to prove their age to smoke.
Maybe it will still be low level, but it could also be seen as a serious use case for identity cards.
I'm not convinced by one year at a time; 21 now and 25 in 4 years' time would be a better start, perhaps alongside significant price hikes, and followed in due course by making the relevant substances probihibited drugs.
Why do people insist on sticking their noses in on other people's legal business? Small mindedness and puritanism on steroids.
Why do people have a problem with programmes to improve health, and prevent those who say "Waah ! Leave me on my own !" imposing unnecessary costs on the Health System?
According to the anti-smoking lobby ASH, smoking costs the NHS £2.5 billion a year According to HMRC smoking raises £8.8 billion a year in tax.
Your costs argument is bullshit.
Depends what they'd spend the money on otherwise, mind. Fresh fruit? Alcohol?
Also the two figures are not directly linked, as the smokers paying the tax today will be getting the joy of cancer in 20, 30 or 40 years (possibly). For instance a colleague's mother in law has recently been diagnosed with lung cancer almost certainly associated with he smoking of many years ago - she hasn't smoked for decades. So even if you banned smoking today, the harms will keep rolling on for decades.
"...and thank you Huw. On "Network North" tonight, more transport chaos as yet another rail line is cancelled, the police announce the third knife amnesty this year, and local centenarian Mary Phillips says it's stout that keeps her young. And now to Alan Partridge with the sport..."
Andy Street confirms he will stay as mayor and a member of the conservative party
Shame. I disagree with him on HS2 but it would have been good to see him make a stand on a point of principle he believes in. He could very easily have quit as a Tory and still continued to do his job as mayor - probably would have got him more support as well.
People who have their bluff called uniformly look ridiculous. This is as true for Andy Street as it is for every parent with a toddler at one time or another.
If you make a bluff you run a serious risk of humiliation.
One more thought before I go to conduct my afternoon.
The smoking age going up by a year every year.
Proof of age is currently only a fairly low level identity thing limited to the young. As time goes on, 30, 40, 50 year olds will be having to prove their age to smoke.
Maybe it will still be low level, but it could also be seen as a serious use case for identity cards.
I'm not convinced by one year at a time; 21 now and 25 in 4 years' time would be a better start, perhaps alongside significant price hikes, and followed in due course by making the relevant substances probihibited drugs.
Why do people insist on sticking their noses in on other people's legal business? Small mindedness and puritanism on steroids.
Why do people have a problem with programmes to improve health, and prevent those who say "Waah ! Leave me on my own !" imposing unnecessary costs on the Health System?
According to the anti-smoking lobby ASH, smoking costs the NHS £2.5 billion a year According to HMRC smoking raises £8.8 billion a year in tax.
Your costs argument is bullshit.
Depends what they'd spend the money on otherwise, mind. Fresh fruit? Alcohol?
Also the two figures are not directly linked, as the smokers paying the tax today will be getting the joy of cancer in 20, 30 or 40 years (possibly). For instance a colleague's mother in law has recently been diagnosed with lung cancer almost certainly associated with he smoking of many years ago - she hasn't smoked for decades. So even if you banned smoking today, the harms will keep rolling on for decades.
That's true, but it makes the comparison even stronger, because the lung cancer we see now is largely a consequence of smoking in the past, when smoking rates were higher, but the tax revenue is from now, when smoking rates are lower.
"...and thank you Huw. On "Network North" tonight, more transport chaos as yet another rail line is cancelled, the police announce the third knife amnesty this year, and local centenarian Mary Phillips says it's stout that keeps her young. And now to Alan Partridge with the sport..."
There'll be no new projects that would not have happened anyway (e.g. under NPR), and the filling in of a pothole in Alston will be shown as "Being from HS2 funds".
The only people 'winning' from this are the treasury.
This government is backwards-looking and utterly London-centric.
Liz Truss says (and I quote) that 'we need more GB News'. Such an astonishing statement that I thought I'd misheard.
Might as well be the new slogan of the Tory Party. Certainly it beats whatever inane drivel about a brighter future the moron room in CCHQ came up with. This conference has been a fiasco that has not been equalled in Conservative history.
My opinion is that mind-altering drugs should be safe, legal and used sparingly.
I'm as opposed to banning nicotine as I am to continuing the futile war on cannabis, heroin, etc.
The current strategy on nicotine is largely working. Smoking rates are decreasing, it's regulated so users know they're using what they think they are using, and people who want help to quit can ask for help without involving the police.
And in this case, I go back to the point, what "freedom of speech" was he trying to make or say? Is he laughing because a six year old kid died of cancer? Makes him stupid or a despicable human being, or both.
The smoking policy is absolute nonsense. It's a decision which should be made by adults. Either you are an adult and thus old enough to decide at 18 or you are not.
If the government wants to discourage smoking further it should simply increase the tax on cigarettes.
Can't we just exile smokers to Rwanda?
Normally, we just make them go stand outside under a small awning...
There is a difference between free speech and freedom to say what you want without impunity. Nobody prevented the football fan in the first place.
I'm not sure I agree. This fella is clearly a horrible individual - one of the regrettable majority of football fans who give the rest a bad name - but I can't see how what he did constitutes a crime. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to say things which are horrible or tasteless or with which we disagree or which might rile those in authority. Otherwise it isn't really freedom at all.
Andy Street on BBC very disappointed in decision but this is a good compromise position
Considering HS2 still goes to London from Birmingham, and that the money saved from the more northerly sections will now partly be used in the Midlands, it's not a surprise he thinks it's a good compromise.
I notice it was also going to be used in other parts of the country. The cynic in me imagines every two bit transport project anywhere in England over the next decade will be allocated to "HS2 savings".
Has Rishi done enough to remain PM until the next GE?
I think he has because there is no alternative that is any better. If you wanted the shot at Tory leadership would you want the year of the sinking ship, or 5 years of building a new ship? I'd want the latter - at least there is a chance of something there.
The situation of the nation is still going to be shit when Starmer takes over. The honeymoon won't last long and for all that they can (and will) blame the Tories, people very soon get fed up when the change doesn't deliver what they hoped. See also Brexit.
Andy Street confirms he will stay as mayor and a member of the conservative party
Shame. I disagree with him on HS2 but it would have been good to see him make a stand on a point of principle he believes in. He could very easily have quit as a Tory and still continued to do his job as mayor - probably would have got him more support as well.
People who have their bluff called uniformly look ridiculous. This is as true for Andy Street as it is for every parent with a toddler at one time or another.
If you make a bluff you run a serious risk of humiliation.
It's possible this will go the Claire Short route. Reassured, stays on board, then realises that after he'd served his purpose for a brief political moment he's being ignored, so flounces a bit later.
Andy Street on BBC very disappointed in decision but this is a good compromise position
Considering HS2 still goes to London from Birmingham, and that the money saved from the more northerly sections will now partly be used in the Midlands, it's not a surprise he thinks it's a good compromise.
I notice it was also going to be used in other parts of the country. The cynic in me imagines every two bit transport project anywhere in England over the next decade will be allocated to "HS2 savings".
Over the next 12 months. After that there will be a different government.
And in this case, I go back to the point, what "freedom of speech" was he trying to make or say? Is he laughing because a six year old kid died of cancer? Makes him stupid or a despicable human being, or both.
Surely we can agree being stupid is not a crime?
Even being a despicable human being, or more accurately a human being acting despicably, should be insufficient on its own to be a crime.
The point of protecting free speech is not to protect those making lovely, logical and correct statements, but to allow the people we disagree with, who are indeed often a bit stupid and occassionally despicable to speak freely.
There is a difference between free speech and freedom to say what you want without impunity. Nobody prevented the football fan in the first place.
I'm not sure I agree. This fella is clearly a horrible individual - one of the regrettable majority of football fans who give the rest a bad name - but I can't see how what he did constitutes a crime. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to say things which are horrible or tasteless or with which we disagree or which might rile those in authority. Otherwise it isn't really freedom at all.
Clearly he merits a good kicking however.
Does anyone think that any country, anywhere in the world has absolute freedom of speech? Of course they don't. In this case if the idiot wants to be free to be grossly insulting to a dead child, then I think others ought to have the freedom to kick the shit out of him without punishment...
The smoking policy is absolute nonsense. It's a decision which should be made by adults. Either you are an adult and thus old enough to decide at 18 or you are not.
If the government wants to discourage smoking further it should simply increase the tax on cigarettes.
Can't we just exile smokers to Rwanda?
Normally, we just make them go stand outside under a small awning...
Ah - the smoking huts that pubs rolled out after the smoking ban came in. How the smokers hated that.
The smoking policy is absolute nonsense. It's a decision which should be made by adults. Either you are an adult and thus old enough to decide at 18 or you are not.
If the government wants to discourage smoking further it should simply increase the tax on cigarettes.
Can't we just exile smokers to Rwanda?
Normally, we just make them go stand outside under a small awning...
Has Rishi done enough to remain PM until the next GE?
I think he has because there is no alternative that is any better. If you wanted the shot at Tory leadership would you want the year of the sinking ship, or 5 years of building a new ship? I'd want the latter - at least there is a chance of something there.
The situation of the nation is still going to be shit when Starmer takes over. The honeymoon won't last long and for all that they can (and will) blame the Tories, people very soon get fed up when the change doesn't deliver what they hoped. See also Brexit.
In some respects the Conservatives scorching the earth in anticipation of a Labour Government and unexpectedly winning a Tory majority of 5 would be the optimal result.
One more thought before I go to conduct my afternoon.
The smoking age going up by a year every year.
Proof of age is currently only a fairly low level identity thing limited to the young. As time goes on, 30, 40, 50 year olds will be having to prove their age to smoke.
Maybe it will still be low level, but it could also be seen as a serious use case for identity cards.
I am now imagining a 65 year old hanging around outside a newsagent, trying to persuade a passing 70 year old to buy them cigarettes.
Trying, but failing, to imagine a "newsagent" existing in 2060 ...
Laurence Fox has apparently been arrested for damaging ULEZ cameras.
Nope, he’s been arrested for Twitter posts and a podcast interview. No suggestion he’s damaged anything.
“A Metropolitan Police spokesman said: “Officers arrested a 45-year-old man on suspicion of conspiring to commit criminal damage to Ulez cameras and encouraging or assisting offences to be committed.”
And in this case, I go back to the point, what "freedom of speech" was he trying to make or say? Is he laughing because a six year old kid died of cancer? Makes him stupid or a despicable human being, or both.
Surely we can agree being stupid is not a crime?
Even being a despicable human being, or more accurately a human being acting despicably, should be insufficient on its own to be a crime.
The point of protecting free speech is not to protect those making lovely, logical and correct statements, but to allow the people we disagree with, who are indeed often a bit stupid and occassionally despicable to speak freely.
Maybe - I think a society has the right to enforce social mores, or that society risks falling apart. Being able to give offence in this way without come back does not seem right to me. A bit like people burning poppies - some assert that that is a freedom of speech issue too, but others are gravely offended. Or worse - burning a Bible or a Koran.
Comedy relies on punching up. Thats why its seen as ok to insult the rich, or the government as they have money and power. You don't punch down. So mocking a poor dead child and his family is really beyond the pale. As I say - what freedom of speech point is made here?
Andy Street on BBC very disappointed in decision but this is a good compromise position
Considering HS2 still goes to London from Birmingham, and that the money saved from the more northerly sections will now partly be used in the Midlands, it's not a surprise he thinks it's a good compromise.
I notice it was also going to be used in other parts of the country. The cynic in me imagines every two bit transport project anywhere in England over the next decade will be allocated to "HS2 savings".
"...and that the money saved from the more northerly sections will now partly be used in the Midlands"
It will not. The money will never get out of the treasury.
And in this case, I go back to the point, what "freedom of speech" was he trying to make or say? Is he laughing because a six year old kid died of cancer? Makes him stupid or a despicable human being, or both.
Surely we can agree being stupid is not a crime?
Even being a despicable human being, or more accurately a human being acting despicably, should be insufficient on its own to be a crime.
The point of protecting free speech is not to protect those making lovely, logical and correct statements, but to allow the people we disagree with, who are indeed often a bit stupid and occassionally despicable to speak freely.
But surely you're not saying we shouldn't be allowed to stop people doing things just because we don't like them?
There is a difference between free speech and freedom to say what you want without impunity. Nobody prevented the football fan in the first place.
I'm not sure I agree. This fella is clearly a horrible individual - one of the regrettable majority of football fans who give the rest a bad name - but I can't see how what he did constitutes a crime. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to say things which are horrible or tasteless or with which we disagree or which might rile those in authority. Otherwise it isn't really freedom at all.
Clearly he merits a good kicking however.
Does anyone think that any country, anywhere in the world has absolute freedom of speech? Of course they don't. In this case if the idiot wants to be free to be grossly insulting to a dead child, then I think others ought to have the freedom to kick the shit out of him without punishment...
So we should be allowed to kill people who say things we find disagreeable?
I'm having another look at the details of the transport announcement - and it appears to be the Trans-Pennine non-upgrade again. Remember how they curtailed the NPR scheme and made bonkers claims for journey time upgrades which were widely ridiculed as impossible?
They've announced £500m for the "Manchester North West Quadrant". That isn't a ready to go scheme - its a study due to start in 2025. £300m for 9 smaller routes including the Wigan East West Route (£220m alone) - no way that £300m covers that £1bn for the Tees Valley. On what? Is it going where the rest of the money has gone? £2.5bn West Yorkshire Mass Transit system - in other words the existing rail lines when you look at what it is and where it goes. Later on it describes giving West Yorkshire only £1.3m of which £500m is a "downpayment" to the metro scheme - so short by £2bn and thus not happening Hull added to NPR, slashing Leeds - Hull journey times to 48 minutes. For 49 miles. So 60mph average. Wooooooo I was wrong about The Stocksbridge line going Tram-Train - its heavy rail to Chesterfield one way and Stocksbridge the other. Sheffield council is very against doing anything as disconnected as reopening Sheffield Victoria station (mentioned repeatedly in the government release) but we know councils are communist and need to be ignored, so...
I could go on. Its painfully bad. Like the Treasury asked for a shopping list of things they could announce which has been pasted together by people who don;t know the schemes or the places or can be arsed to read what has gone out. It is openly contradictory to itself and repeats the same points.
Comments
The annual ratchet on buying cigs. Yes. Excellent.
Trying the famous "egg bites" in the air cooker.
Clearly slightly too much of something, as they went like Marge Simpson's hairdo.
He and Calvin Robinson sacked by Wokeist GB News.
I would suggest Sunak needs to gather the northern mayors at no 10 to agree the way forward and to have regular meetings
Where is labour's response ?
Interesting hatchet job by Jen Williams on the Graun feed - at 11.22
"Jennifer Williams, the Financial Times’ northern correspondent, explains why people in her region are unlikely to be impressed. There is a long history of the north being promised transport upgrades that never materialise, she says." and she goes on ...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/oct/04/hs2-rishi-sunak-manchester-tory-conference-conservative-rail-latest-updates?page=with:block-651d381f8f08297bb3421029#block-651d381f8f08297bb3421029
Next week he has to design a new soda-pop with a marketing angle.
Oh, and if this new station in Bradford is on the site previously proposed, and just replaces Interchange, it will mean a longer walk from Forster Square than at present. What is needed is a single, central station, not half a new station further away from the city centre.
https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1709529507659473192?t=Z_drqe2WGKm3cauAlDelxA&s=19
"Do you believe him?"
Ugh. Conservative politics is just so…shit.
Shame.
And yes, they are ace.
On Tuesday, in an interview broadcast on video platform Rumble, Fox, 45, declared full support for the “Blade Runners” group of Ulez vigilantes.
“I encourage them to tear down every single camera there is and I will be joining them,” the suspended GB News host said.
He added: “I am pretty close with several and I will be out there with my angle grinder.”
He also told presenter Maajid Nawaz he would be “happy to be arrested” if he was caught removing the cameras.
A video shared on Wednesday morning by the Reclaim Party, of which Fox is leader, showed five police officers at the disgraced presenter’s address.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/04/laurence-fox-police-search-ulez-gb-news-cameras/
Does that comment really cross the line into illegality?
There’s no suggestion that Fox ever touched an ULEZ camera, and he’s not been arrested for actual criminal damage.
One gets the impression that Fox is well-funded and could take this to the Supreme Court.
How would criminal damage of ULEZ cameras be compared to criminal damage to statues a few years ago?
Really not sure what's left there for him.
Next West Midlands mayoral election is 2 May 2024.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/fan-who-mocked-late-six-year-old-sunderland-mascot-faces-jail-after-utterly-deplorable-act/ar-AA1hzslw
The Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism, both in and outside of the UK, as the use or threat of one or more of the actions listed below
. serious damage to property;
The use or threat of action, as set out above, which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism regardless of whether or not the action is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public.
Action includes action outside the United Kingdom.
It is important to note that in order to be convicted of a terrorism offence a person doesn't actually have to commit what could be considered a terrorist attack. Planning, assisting and even collecting information on how to commit terrorist acts are all crimes under British terrorism legislation.
Fox has NOT threatened to use firearms or explosives though
We all know that free speech has limits and rightly so. Behaviour such as this is utterly puerile and worthy of punishment (but not jail).
If you make a bluff you run a serious risk of humiliation.
The only people 'winning' from this are the treasury.
This government is backwards-looking and utterly London-centric.
I'm as opposed to banning nicotine as I am to continuing the futile war on cannabis, heroin, etc.
The current strategy on nicotine is largely working. Smoking rates are decreasing, it's regulated so users know they're using what they think they are using, and people who want help to quit can ask for help without involving the police.
Clearly he merits a good kicking however.
I notice it was also going to be used in other parts of the country. The cynic in me imagines every two bit transport project anywhere in England over the next decade will be allocated to "HS2 savings".
The situation of the nation is still going to be shit when Starmer takes over. The honeymoon won't last long and for all that they can (and will) blame the Tories, people very soon get fed up when the change doesn't deliver what they hoped. See also Brexit.
But we may hear something next week?
Even being a despicable human being, or more accurately a human being acting despicably, should be insufficient on its own to be a crime.
The point of protecting free speech is not to protect those making lovely, logical and correct statements, but to allow the people we disagree with, who are indeed often a bit stupid and occassionally despicable to speak freely.
“A Metropolitan Police spokesman said: “Officers arrested a 45-year-old man on suspicion of conspiring to commit criminal damage to Ulez cameras and encouraging or assisting offences to be committed.”
Comedy relies on punching up. Thats why its seen as ok to insult the rich, or the government as they have money and power. You don't punch down. So mocking a poor dead child and his family is really beyond the pale. As I say - what freedom of speech point is made here?
It will not. The money will never get out of the treasury.
They've announced £500m for the "Manchester North West Quadrant". That isn't a ready to go scheme - its a study due to start in 2025.
£300m for 9 smaller routes including the Wigan East West Route (£220m alone) - no way that £300m covers that
£1bn for the Tees Valley. On what? Is it going where the rest of the money has gone?
£2.5bn West Yorkshire Mass Transit system - in other words the existing rail lines when you look at what it is and where it goes. Later on it describes giving West Yorkshire only £1.3m of which £500m is a "downpayment" to the metro scheme - so short by £2bn and thus not happening
Hull added to NPR, slashing Leeds - Hull journey times to 48 minutes. For 49 miles. So 60mph average. Wooooooo
I was wrong about The Stocksbridge line going Tram-Train - its heavy rail to Chesterfield one way and Stocksbridge the other. Sheffield council is very against doing anything as disconnected as reopening Sheffield Victoria station (mentioned repeatedly in the government release) but we know councils are communist and need to be ignored, so...
I could go on. Its painfully bad. Like the Treasury asked for a shopping list of things they could announce which has been pasted together by people who don;t know the schemes or the places or can be arsed to read what has gone out. It is openly contradictory to itself and repeats the same points.