Unless you live and work in Brum HS2 is not going to make much difference to anything - and even if you do it will be marginal. I can see how high speed trains over long distances can be beneficial to an extent, but do we want London to become even more important? Surely, the best thing is to encourage the growth of our big regional cities independently of London - which is what seems to happen in most other European countries (and elsewhere). I am not sure how HS2 would do that. If we have the resources HS2 is going to take up, surely they are better spent elsewhere. Is there any other developed country with a population like ours in which one city so dominates?
"Unless you live and work in Brum HS2 is not going to make much difference to anything"
Why not? The studies indicate otherwise. Classic compatible trains will run onto even phase 1 from the north. Yet alone the extra paths created for freight and passenger traffic on the classic routes.
"but do we want London to become even more important?"
If the regions served plan well for HS2, they can get very large advantages from it.
"Surely, the best thing is to encourage the growth of our big regional cities independently of London - which is what seems to happen in most other European countries (and elsewhere)."
"If we have the resources HS2 is going to take up, surely they are better spent elsewhere."
Where? If you believe (as the studies show) that there is going to be a capacity crunch on the network, where is the 'elsewhere'? This has been looked into extensively, and none of the schemes give the same advantages as HS2. And also remember the chaos of the WCML upgrade.
JJ, a real motorway between Scotland's two major cities. Minimum dual carriageway of the A9, a decent link from south west Scotland to the motorway system are 3 for starters.
Scotland could afford this sort of thing if it didn't have free prescriptions and free Uni fees.
And a huge boondoggle in Holyrood.
You can only spend your pocket money twice kiddies.
Unless you live and work in Brum HS2 is not going to make much difference to anything - and even if you do it will be marginal. I can see how high speed trains over long distances can be beneficial to an extent, but do we want London to become even more important? Surely, the best thing is to encourage the growth of our big regional cities independently of London - which is what seems to happen in most other European countries (and elsewhere). I am not sure how HS2 would do that. If we have the resources HS2 is going to take up, surely they are better spent elsewhere. Is there any other developed country with a population like ours in which one city so dominates?
"Unless you live and work in Brum HS2 is not going to make much difference to anything"
Why not? The studies indicate otherwise. Classic compatible trains will run onto even phase 1 from the north. Yet alone the extra paths created for freight and passenger traffic on the classic routes.
"but do we want London to become even more important?"
If the regions served plan well for HS2, they can get very large advantages from it.
"Surely, the best thing is to encourage the growth of our big regional cities independently of London - which is what seems to happen in most other European countries (and elsewhere)."
"If we have the resources HS2 is going to take up, surely they are better spent elsewhere."
Where? If you believe (as the studies show) that there is going to be a capacity crunch on the network, where is the 'elsewhere'? This has been looked into extensively, and none of the schemes give the same advantages as HS2. And also remember the chaos of the WCML upgrade.
JJ, a real motorway between Scotland's two major cities. Minimum dual carriageway of the A9, a decent link from south west Scotland to the motorway system are 3 for starters.
Scotland could afford this sort of thing if it didn't have free prescriptions and free Uni fees.
And a huge boondoggle in Holyrood.
You can only spend your pocket money twice kiddies.
LOL, what a turnip, what you really mean is if we were not paying for crossrail, London sewers , HS2 or previously paid for London Olympics and may other London centric projects.
In France, Paris is much more dominant than London is and the 'successful regional cities' I would suggest are very much on a par with the more successful regional cities of the UK. I guess they're sunnier?
One of the things that shocked me most about Paris, incidentally, is the shanty town that seems to exist just off the eurostar route in the north. Does London have anything comparable to this?
Probably not, because as was well rehearsed at the time, the Channel Tunnel rail route ran through crappy depressed parts of northern France but through affluent prosperous bits of southern Britain. Why areas so close to Paris should be that grotty I couldn't say, but the equivalent shanty dumps in the UK would be places like Easterhouse or the whole of Dundee.
You'd probably also find that casual labour drawn to London benefits from London's substantial BTL sector, which is something I don't think France has.
@Antifrank - "Paris is much more dominant of France than you appear to realise."
That does not mean that other regional centres are not thriving in a way that we do not see here in the UK. Read up on Toulouse, for example. Its growth over recent years has been exceptional. No regional city in the UK comes close to matching it.
"argument has been replaced by a form of McCarthyism, policy debate by puerile insults. So we are told that Ukip’s campaign posters, spelling out the disastrous impact of uncontrolled immigration, are “racist”.
Similarly, a phoney storm is being generated by people dredging up online comments by even the most obscure Ukip members on social media sites. In this climate of witch hunting and guilt by association, any controversial remark or dodgy behaviour by a Ukip supporter is paraded as representative of the party as a whole.
But these negative, mud-slinging tactics have backfired spectacularly. The onslaught has only enhanced the rise of Ukip, as this weekend’s figures demonstrate. This is because most Britons see through all the synthetic indignation."
@Antifrank - "Paris is much more dominant of France than you appear to realise."
That does not mean that other regional centres are not thriving in a way that we do not see here in the UK. Read up on Toulouse, for example. Its growth over recent years has been exceptional. No regional city in the UK comes close to matching it.
Your original question was: "Is there any other developed country with a population like ours in which one city so dominates?"
The main parties desperately need somebody working class to attack UKIP.
All the people doing it so far are shot down in a hail of 's8d off you comfortably off north london leftie' comments.
Anyone attacking UKIP at the moment is going to be shot down, as a lot of Tories who are not North London lefties are discovering. Seems to me the best tactic is to accept they are going to win the Euro's and develop strategies for the GE, which is the important one. An obvious line of attack for Labour at that point will UKIP's claim to be the true inheritors of Mrs T's legacy. That may be a good Tory line of attack too.
Lots of people will vote frivolously in the EU elections, as our host's thread header neatly demonstrates. They'll happily accept that UKIP is a joke party, but in a joke election that's fine.
Will the public vote for Nigel Farage's fag packet policies in a general election in the same numbers? I very much doubt it.
Unless you live and work in Brum HS2 is not going tone city so dominates?
"Unless you live and work in Brum HS2 is not going to make much difference to anything"
Why not? The studies indicate otherwise. Classic compatible trains will run onto even phase 1 from the north. Yet alone the extra paths created for freight and passenger traffic on the classic routes.
"but do we want London to become even more important?"
If the regions served plan well for HS2, they can get very large advantages from it.
"Surely, the best thing is to encourage the growth of our big regional cities independently of London - which is what seems to happen in most other European countries (and elsewhere)."
JJ, a real motorway between Scotland's two major cities. Minimum dual carriageway of the A9, a decent link from south west Scotland to the motorway system are 3 for starters.
Scotland could afford this sort of thing if it didn't have free prescriptions and free Uni fees.
And a huge boondoggle in Holyrood.
You can only spend your pocket money twice kiddies.
LOL, what a turnip, what you really mean is if we were not paying for crossrail, London sewers , HS2 or previously paid for London Olympics and may other London centric projects.
You chose a silly looking gold encrusted parly building, a commonwealth games, free medicine for millionaires, free University for trust fund kids and a pledge to reintroduce the benefit claimants mansion subsidy.
Brownenomics.
PS - The 2nd Forth crossing was a good idea I guess - more of that , less of the vanity projects.
a real motorway between Scotland's two major cities. Minimum dual carriageway of the A9, a decent link from south west Scotland to the motorway system are 3 for starters.
One thing at a time. First you'd need Scots to be able to afford cars, otherwise you'll be spending scarce revenues on big empty roads for Norbert Dentressangle.
JJ, a real motorway between Scotland's two major cities. Minimum dual carriageway of the A9, a decent link from south west Scotland to the motorway system are 3 for starters.
All of which will fix problems (I believe the A9 dualling is going ahead), and I certainly agree that the roads through Dumfries and Galloway need an upgrade (although I'm unsure where the point traffic are - aren't they mainly coastal?)
But they're all different problems to the ones HS2 is meant to be fixing.
Pfizer says if takes over AZ it will be domiciled in Uk*.
Big coup for the UK.
Corp tax rate cuts bearing fruit.
* or rUk if Scotland cut their own throats.
Yeah like Cadbury's was ? I didn't think Geneva was in the UK.
I'm afraid this is the usual multinat "tell you what you want to hear" before they shaft you. It's like Russell Brand telling you he'll always love you.
@Antifrank - "Paris is much more dominant of France than you appear to realise."
That does not mean that other regional centres are not thriving in a way that we do not see here in the UK. Read up on Toulouse, for example. Its growth over recent years has been exceptional. No regional city in the UK comes close to matching it.
Toulouse has its raison d'etre - namely aircraft, aerospace, IT, biochemistry etc.
So many of the UK's larger towns and cities have lost their reason for being there and have not reinvented themselves.
Re a working class attack dog. If Farage weren't such a snooty twit, UKIP momentum would be close to unstoppable. Their onlY drawback is the idiot Tufton Buftons in exile setup, they have no mass appeal, which anyone looking to break the two party domination would need. As it is, they will Hoover up the old Gammer and blue rinse vote, appeal to the already disenchanted, but fail to convince the vast majority. What they need is someone who will go on the goggle box and talk like a human being, ditch the socially conservative policies and get rid of the red faced old duffers. Then I'm in. But they won't, they think Snooty McGee is Jesus.
In France, Paris is much more dominant than London is and the 'successful regional cities' I would suggest are very much on a par with the more successful regional cities of the UK. I guess they're sunnier?
One of the things that shocked me most about Paris, incidentally, is the shanty town that seems to exist just off the eurostar route in the north. Does London have anything comparable to this?
The success of Toulouse over the last couple of decades is unlike anything experienced by any regional city in the UK.
Pfizer says if takes over AZ it will be domiciled in Uk*.
Big coup for the UK.
Corp tax rate cuts bearing fruit.
* or rUk if Scotland cut their own throats.
Flash, That is like saying "if" Rangers go bust again, you know the answer already
malc - you appear to know nothing about the Rangers situ - I'd stop making a fool of yourself again.
£70m mainly trousered by insiders and them only being able to take cash for season tickets is not hard to work out. Any fool knows the outcome unless they give majority shareholding to Dave.
How many bears will be able to pay cash do you think
Pfizer says if takes over AZ it will be domiciled in Uk*.
Big coup for the UK.
Corp tax rate cuts bearing fruit.
* or rUk if Scotland cut their own throats.
Yeah like Cadbury's was ? I didn't think Geneva was in the UK.
I'm afraid this is the usual multinat "tell you what you want to hear" before they shaft you. It's like Russell Brand telling you he'll always love you.
Unless you live and work in Brum HS2 is not going to make much difference to anything - and even if you do it will be marginal. I can see how high speed trains over long distances can be beneficial to an extent, but do we want London to become even more important? Surely, the best thing is to encourage the growth of our big regional cities independently of London - which is what seems to happen in most other European countries (and elsewhere). I am not sure how HS2 would do that. If we have the resources HS2 is going to take up, surely they are better spent elsewhere. Is there any other developed country with a population like ours in which one city so dominates?
"Unless you live and work in Brum HS2 is not going to make much difference to anything"
Why not? The studies indicate otherwise. Classic compatible trains will run onto even phase 1 from the north. Yet alone the extra paths created for freight and passenger traffic on the classic routes.
"but do we want London to become even more important?"
If the regions served plan well for HS2, they can get very large advantages from it.
"Surely, the best thing is to encourage the growth of our big regional cities independently of London - which is what seems to happen in most other European countries (and elsewhere)."
"If we have the resources HS2 is going to take up, surely they are better spent elsewhere."
Where? If you believe (as the studies show) that there is going to be a capacity crunch on the network, where is the 'elsewhere'? This has been looked into extensively, and none of the schemes give the same advantages as HS2. And also remember the chaos of the WCML upgrade.
JJ, a real motorway between Scotland's two major cities. Minimum dual carriageway of the A9, a decent link from south west Scotland to the motorway system are 3 for starters.
Scotland could afford this sort of thing if it didn't have free prescriptions and free Uni fees.
And a huge boondoggle in Holyrood.
You can only spend your pocket money twice kiddies.
I wouldn't try Uni fees given the complete dog's breakfast Willetts is making of them. In this instance Salmond will actually be right.
Re a working class attack dog. If Farage weren't such a snooty twit, UKIP momentum would be close to unstoppable. Their onlY drawback is the idiot Tufton Buftons in exile setup, they have no mass appeal, which anyone looking to break the two party domination would need. As it is, they will Hoover up the old Gammer and blue rinse vote, appeal to the already disenchanted, but fail to convince the vast majority. What they need is someone who will go on the goggle box and talk like a human being, ditch the socially conservative policies and get rid of the red faced old duffers. Then I'm in. But they won't, they think Snooty McGee is Jesus.
@Antifrank - "Paris is much more dominant of France than you appear to realise."
That does not mean that other regional centres are not thriving in a way that we do not see here in the UK. Read up on Toulouse, for example. Its growth over recent years has been exceptional. No regional city in the UK comes close to matching it.
Toulouse has its raison d'etre - namely aircraft, aerospace, IT, biochemistry etc.
So many of the UK's larger towns and cities have lost their reason for being there and have not reinvented themselves.
Pfizer says if takes over AZ it will be domiciled in Uk*.
Big coup for the UK.
Corp tax rate cuts bearing fruit.
* or rUk if Scotland cut their own throats.
Yeah like Cadbury's was ? I didn't think Geneva was in the UK.
I'm afraid this is the usual multinat "tell you what you want to hear" before they shaft you. It's like Russell Brand telling you he'll always love you.
Pfizer says if takes over AZ it will be domiciled in Uk*.
Big coup for the UK.
Corp tax rate cuts bearing fruit.
* or rUk if Scotland cut their own throats.
Yeah like Cadbury's was ? I didn't think Geneva was in the UK.
I'm afraid this is the usual multinat "tell you what you want to hear" before they shaft you. It's like Russell Brand telling you he'll always love you.
Re a working class attack dog. If Farage weren't such a snooty twit, UKIP momentum would be close to unstoppable. Their onlY drawback is the idiot Tufton Buftons in exile setup, they have no mass appeal, which anyone looking to break the two party domination would need. As it is, they will Hoover up the old Gammer and blue rinse vote, appeal to the already disenchanted, but fail to convince the vast majority. What they need is someone who will go on the goggle box and talk like a human being, ditch the socially conservative policies and get rid of the red faced old duffers. Then I'm in. But they won't, they think Snooty McGee is Jesus.
I think you are better off somewhere else!
Obviously. UKIP as currently constructed is a nuisance and offers nothing other than the risk of Labour winning. Labour losing is the only thing that matters in 2015
Pfizer says if takes over AZ it will be domiciled in Uk*.
Big coup for the UK.
Corp tax rate cuts bearing fruit.
* or rUk if Scotland cut their own throats.
Yeah like Cadbury's was ? I didn't think Geneva was in the UK.
I'm afraid this is the usual multinat "tell you what you want to hear" before they shaft you. It's like Russell Brand telling you he'll always love you.
It was many years ago, but I went to University as a definite lefty and came out disillusioned with the middle class loons who generally proposed the theories. I remember a sociology lecturer who use to corner me in the bar to talk about Marxist theory. Very patronising, as I was a science undergraduate and not posh like he was.
One day he walked in looking a bit battered. He'd been hawking Socialist Worker round the local pubs and he claimed that a Fascist gang had followed him, alarmed by his success in converting the proletarian vanguard ... or something like that .
It was many years ago, but I went to University as a definite lefty and came out disillusioned with the middle class loons who generally proposed the theories.
For me it was the people who led the left at college. They were universally the privately educated sons and daughters of wealthy lawyers/senior civil servants/Uni lecturers/Doctors etc.
When I talked about going to school in Wales with kids from council houses their eyes glazed over. They had clearly never encountered someone from a poor background in their lives.
Hmm. University feminist lecturers rather put me off feminism, not that I was ever into it.
'History' = 'his story' is a particularly stupid line, as repeated (reportedly) by those women demanding Mary Beard front civilisation.
History, of course, is not a contraction of 'his story' but derived from the Latin historia. Which is feminine.
I used to feel that way about feminism, having met a few women who exhibited a slightly obnoxious behaviour in the name of the ideal. However Mrs J is absolutely a feminist, and exhibits none of those traits.
Sadly, it is the extreme feminists who tend to get noticed, if only because they shout loudly, often for their own purposes.
Mr. Jessop, I should stress that there was only one feminist lecturer who could be described as 'bonkers' (she once used a theoretical example of leaving men behind in a burning lecture theatre...). The others were perfectly pleasant on a personal level.
Possibly a life changing year for me was going to Brighton Uni to study Humanities in 2010
The lecturers were Marxists, Communist and SWP members that preached an extreme leftist dogma . One of there key phrases was "There is no such thing as common sense" and they would go to all manner of lengths to prevent any form of traditional thinking.
That to me seemed ridiculously old fashioned, much more so than the notion of independence or Grammar schools. Thank God a party that favours the complete opposite is now the rising force in English politics
I did my PGCE at Brighton Uni, the lecturers were as you have described. My own tutor not only thought Arthur Scargill was a pinko class traitor, she was also permanently pissed - more than once she broke off in the middle of a tutorial in order to powder her nose and came back reeking of gin (I was outraged, she could have offered me some and made the experience better for both of us). I wanted the badge so I just regurgitated the nonsense they spouted; as their minds were closed to alternative ideas it was the easiest path. The other mature students on the course did the same but at least some of the youngsters seemed to take it as revelation of divine truth, which was worrying.
My philosophy lecturer wandered in to the class in Nov 1990 and announced triumphantly 'she's gone' He was a dick. We were later greeted by red rag worker sellers claiming they had won. I asked them what precisely they had done other than sell Lenin to idiots who missed the irony. I believe I was referred to as a fascist. I laughed like a drain when Kinnock blew 92 and got very drunk and stoned, munch to my liberal girlfriends chagrin.
London is the capital city of a country that has what, 3 or 4% of global GDP? I sell a rat. The sad truth is that, as Peston's article points out, much of this is about a global elite stuffing its money in the UK to avoid tax. There's nothing special about London. It's just an enlarged version of Bermuda. Most other major countries have too much dignity to prostitute themselves to the global oligarchy. Not the UK though.
Who could 'official' mean? It sounds like the sort of thing an Osborne SPAD would say. However when I hear official I tend to think civil servant. If it was a civil servant they should be taken out and shot.
It's not often that I defend Edward Heath and Harold Wilson, but I think it's a bit rich to blame them for the fact that the EU has evolved in ways different to what people thought they were getting at the time. It wasn't Ted Heath who signed the Single European Act in 1986. It wasn't Ted Heath who signed the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992. It wasn't Ted Heath who signed the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997, or the Treaty of Nice in 2001. It wasn't Ted Heath who agreed to the accession of Romania and Bulgaria or who declined to take advantage of the provisions for restricting immigation from the other accession countries. And, above all, it wasn't Ted Heath who signed the Treaty of Lisbon having broken a pledge to put it to a referendum.
At any point in this series, the UK could have vetoed any aspects of the evolution of the EU which it didn't like. That we didn't do so is the responsibility not of Ted Heath, but of the successive governments of the time, in particular of Blair and Brown, responsible for the worst mistakes in this list.
Edward Heath was well aware of the implications for Britain of membership of the EEC. He specifically hid the fact he had given away fishing rights from the country and was also in a position to be aware that the 'Ever Closer Union' statement had legal force under community law.
You are of course right though. It was other Prime Ministers who signed the Single European act, the Maastricht Treaty and the Amsterdam Treaty - all Tory.
Just back from my training for being a poll clerk at the Euros. The official word as regards expected turn-out was, "Make sure your Kindle is fully charged because you'll have lots of time to fill". It would seem that the powers that be expect no more than 33% of registered voters will bother. How they come to that conclusion I don't know. I merely pass it on.
We have to be cautious, and I'm not claiming that the benefits to the north will be magnificent to behold. I'm fairly certain they could be. In fact, I'll repeat what I've said all along:
Continental examples show that the benefits of high-speed rail are highest when the places served buy-in to the scheme and use it to good effect. If they do not, then the benefits will be reduced.
Continental examples show that High Speed rail links do little or nothing to regenerate the regions and serve only to suck more investment into the middle. In France this was Paris and in the UK it will be London. The idea that HS2 will bridge the North South divide in any meaningful way is just a myth and is proven to be such by the continent.
That's not my understanding from the reports I've read. Several things stand out:
1) There have not been enough studies into the effects of European high-sped rail. Some studies have found it hard to divide cause and effect: what developments and traffic would have happened anyway.
2) There are many examples where it has benefited the regions. There are many others where the capitals have benefited most, and others where both benefited - it is not necessarily a zero-sum game.
3) Where councils have not brought into the project, benefits are less or negative.
4) There is an intra-regional effect. Where it does benefit a region, some of this comes from a transfer from the hinterlands towards the railway. This is a negative, and makes it even harder to understand the effects.
I'll try and dig out the report(s): I've linked to them before on here, but can't find them in my links file. But for the moment the ones I linked to above are worth a read.
Number 3) is why I spent so much time last summer trying to convince Nick about why HS2 would be a good thing. If he becomes MP again, his constituency will have a hub, and to get the most gain, people like him need to be on board. Sadly I think I rather spectacularly failed on that one ...
So on the basis of what you seem to be summarising as. at best, debatable claims of benefits, you think it is worth spending upwards of £50 billion on a big boys train set?
Looks like they may approve HS2 2day. Pity: it ought to be OS2 ("Ordinary Speed 2").
Not at all popular up here.
If UKIP actually bothered to campaign around here they could get closer in the ward - the anti HS2 stance could pick up alot of votes though it may have these already - will be interesting to see how they do.
(2 member ward, 2.5k Lab, 1k UKIP, 800 Con last time )
A good many tory MPs have actually noticed it would seem.
Local elections "The Lib Dems will be down just short of 500 candidates against 2010. This decline is concentrated, but is by no means exclusively, in London and the Mets. This represents a decline of some 15 per cent against 2010.
Another imponderable will be how the Lib Dem supporters will vote where no Lib Dem candidate is available."
That's not my understanding from the reports I've read. Several things stand out:
1) There have not been enough studies into the effects of European high-sped rail. Some studies have found it hard to divide cause and effect: what developments and traffic would have happened anyway.
2) There are many examples where it has benefited the regions. There are many others where the capitals have benefited most, and others where both benefited - it is not necessarily a zero-sum game.
3) Where councils have not brought into the project, benefits are less or negative.
4) There is an intra-regional effect. Where it does benefit a region, some of this comes from a transfer from the hinterlands towards the railway. This is a negative, and makes it even harder to understand the effects.
I'll try and dig out the report(s): I've linked to them before on here, but can't find them in my links file. But for the moment the ones I linked to above are worth a read.
Number 3) is why I spent so much time last summer trying to convince Nick about why HS2 would be a good thing. If he becomes MP again, his constituency will have a hub, and to get the most gain, people like him need to be on board. Sadly I think I rather spectacularly failed on that one ...
So on the basis of what you seem to be summarising as. at best, debatable claims of benefits, you think it is worth spending upwards of £50 billion on a big boys train set?
I'm not saying they are debatable benefits; I think it is likely to be very good for the country, especially looking forward a long time. We were talking about the effect on the regions, yet alone all the other advantages it gives. But if we go into it with a negative outlook, it will be harder to make it work.
And I think your 'upwards of £50 billion' is also wrong. You should read the reports and not listen to the likes of the IEA.
The phrase 'big boys train set' rather suggests that nothing I say, no evidence I put forward, will convince you.
Looks like they may approve HS2 2day. Pity: it ought to be OS2 ("Ordinary Speed 2").
Not at all popular up here.
If UKIP actually bothered to campaign around here they could get closer in the ward - the anti HS2 stance could pick up alot of votes though it may have these already - will be interesting to see how they do.
(2 member ward, 2.5k Lab, 1k UKIP, 800 Con last time )
A good many tory MPs have actually noticed it would seem.
Two peas in a pod. But they are nationalists, so why wouldn't that be the case?
Actually if you look at the longer quote it doesn't seem so bad. However he does suggest Putin has restored Russian pride. I'd be a bit concerned about the basis on which that was done.
We argue that the impact of new infrastructure depends predominantly on how urban actors react to the new opportunities offered by improved external accessibility. Individuals can either travel further or reach their destinations earlier; it means that their relevant region will become larger. We argue that urban actors will develop strategies to help their city achieve a higher position in the urban hierarchy.
In other words, to get the most out, you need to be on board.
Two peas in a pod. But they are nationalists, so why wouldn't that be the case?
Or shows Salmond thinks he can blag it.
So tomorrow he'll say he's a lynch pin of Europe while telling the Poles, Balts and the rest of E Europe that Putin is really a great guy. I can't see that working for him.
@Antifrank - "Paris is much more dominant of France than you appear to realise."
That does not mean that other regional centres are not thriving in a way that we do not see here in the UK. Read up on Toulouse, for example. Its growth over recent years has been exceptional. No regional city in the UK comes close to matching it.
Bristol, Swindon, Oxford, Reading and Cambridge are just a few.
Manchester has recently seen a big increase in jobs and inhabitants over the last ten years, Leeds has had a pretty decent run as well.
As a Lib Dem candidate and councillor (at least for another month) it is apparnet to me how people now use their votes in different ways. Many "oldies" are voting LD locally, UKIP for the Euros and either Labour or Conservative nationally. The days of mass block voting for one party seem to have gone.
"We argue that the impact of new infrastructure depends predominantly on how urban actors react to the new opportunities offered by improved external accessibility. "
Anybody who writes sentences like that is a snake-oil salesman and anything they say is likely to be total b0ll0cks. "Urban actors", indeed.
Two peas in a pod. But they are nationalists, so why wouldn't that be the case?
Actually if you look at the longer quote it doesn't seem so bad. However he does suggest Putin has restored Russian pride. I'd be a bit concerned about the basis on which that was done.
It was a fairly standard cold war game for the two sides to support 'freedom' or 'independence' movements in the other.
That's not my understanding from the reports I've read. Several things stand out:
1) There have not been enough studies into the effects of European high-sped rail. Some studies have found it hard to divide cause and effect: what developments and traffic would have happened anyway.
2) There are many examples where it has benefited the regions. There are many others where the capitals have benefited most, and others where both benefited - it is not necessarily a zero-sum game.
3) Where councils have not brought into the project, benefits are less or negative.
4) There is an intra-regional effect. Where it does benefit a region, some of this comes from a transfer from the hinterlands towards the railway. This is a negative, and makes it even harder to understand the effects.
I'll try and dig out the report(s): I've linked to them before on here, but can't find them in my links file. But for the moment the ones I linked to above are worth a read.
Number 3) is why I spent so much time last summer trying to convince Nick about why HS2 would be a good thing. If he becomes MP again, his constituency will have a hub, and to get the most gain, people like him need to be on board. Sadly I think I rather spectacularly failed on that one ...
So on the basis of what you seem to be summarising as. at best, debatable claims of benefits, you think it is worth spending upwards of £50 billion on a big boys train set?
I'm not saying they are debatable benefits; I think it is likely to be very good for the country, especially looking forward a long time. We were talking about the effect on the regions, yet alone all the other advantages it gives. But if we go into it with a negative outlook, it will be harder to make it work.
And I think your 'upwards of £50 billion' is also wrong. You should read the reports and not listen to the likes of the IEA.
The phrase 'big boys train set' rather suggests that nothing I say, no evidence I put forward, will convince you.
I think you are right. Like you I have read the reports on other HS systems around Europe and I have also read the various reports on probable costs. So no I am not going to be changed in my view since like you I believe it is based on sound evidence and no one yet has made for me a convincing argument based on similar evidence in favour.
Possibly a life changing year for me was going to Brighton Uni to study Humanities in 2010
The lecturers were Marxists, Communist and SWP members that preached an extreme leftist dogma . One of there key phrases was "There is no such thing as common sense" and they would go to all manner of lengths to prevent any form of traditional thinking.
That to me seemed ridiculously old fashioned, much more so than the notion of independence or Grammar schools. Thank God a party that favours the complete opposite is now the rising force in English politics
I did my PGCE at Brighton Uni, the lecturers were as you have described. My own tutor not only thought Arthur Scargill was a pinko class traitor, she was also permanently pissed - more than once she broke off in the middle of a tutorial in order to powder her nose and came back reeking of gin (I was outraged, she could have offered me some and made the experience better for both of us). I wanted the badge so I just regurgitated the nonsense they spouted; as their minds were closed to alternative ideas it was the easiest path. The other mature students on the course did the same but at least some of the youngsters seemed to take it as revelation of divine truth, which was worrying.
When did you attend?! Yes it was though they were stuck in the 80s and thought they were being trendy and progressive when they just sounded old fashioned. The kids were being indoctrinated for sure, it was unbelievable, and I only lasted a year.
I wrote a few essays that were pro Marxist, got six 2:1s and even got a first for one on utilitarianism, but as soon as I wrote one criticising immigration and the effect of globalisation I got 38%.. a FAIL!
(To be fair, my pro Enoch Powell essay got a 2:1.. which probably meant it deserved a first)
Bias.. nooooo
One lecturer used to quote extensively from the Guardian, and call anyone who disagreed a Daily Mail reader!
The moment I "turned" was when we had to read Enoch Powell's speech. I had never read it before, it seemed perfectly logical to me, and although I was uncomfortable with myself for agreeing with a perceived racist, I couldn't deny what he said fitted with my experience of working and living in London and the suburbs. They tried to pretend they were being neutral but gave us highlighters and asked us to find examples of racist speech, then presented a critique of the speech by Paul Foot as a neutral source!
The Modern Parents from Viz would've loved it, I used to literally say in seminars "You couldn't make it up!". I didn't know people like that really existed!
The problem we have in the UK is the steady growth of the power of Nimby's and how the political class has responded to them has given them more power.
You can't pick up a local paper without reading about campaigns against a new school/ supermarket/housing estate of link road.
It's all 'we want to live in the modern world' 'but no change here, thanks'. Everyone knows we have a vast housing shortage of houses, yet every scheme is fought tooth and nail. No wonder house builder have land banks, it can take a decade to get big plots ready for construction.
This country has had a woeful record on road and rail expenditure, and as a consequence we have the most crowded roads and rail lines in Europe. It's no come to the point where 'brave political decisions' have to be made and a lot of money spent.
HS2 is needed, from all rational examination of the evidence. Opponents spend there time flailing around latching onto alternatives that can all easily be shot down. But either they can't be bothered to read any of all the detailed reports and it's so much easier to fall back on to their own prejudices than actually bother to research anything. Or they know the alternatives are no good, it's just they rather not spend the money just now, they would rather let some else deal with it in 10 or 20 years, when they can of course then bitch in permanent gridlock why no one had the vision to deal with it.
To much of the British political spectrum has preferred to spend money on transfer payments rather than infrastructure spending.
That's not my understanding from the reports I've read. Several things stand out:
1) There have not been enough studies into the effects of European high-sped rail. Some studies have found it hard to divide cause and effect: what developments and traffic would have happened anyway.
2) There are many examples where it has benefited the regions. There are many others where the capitals have benefited most, and others where both benefited - it is not necessarily a zero-sum game.
3) Where councils have not brought into the project, benefits are less or negative.
4) There is an intra-regional effect. Where it does benefit a region, some of this comes from a transfer from the hinterlands towards the railway. This is a negative, and makes it even harder to understand the effects.
I'll try and dig out the report(s): I've linked to them before on here, but can't find them in my links file. But for the moment the ones I linked to above are worth a read.
Number 3) is why I spent so much time last summer trying to convince Nick about why HS2 would be a good thing. If he becomes MP again, his constituency will have a hub, and to get the most gain, people like him need to be on board. Sadly I think I rather spectacularly failed on that one ...
So on the basis of what you seem to be summarising as. at best, debatable claims of benefits, you think it is worth spending upwards of £50 billion on a big boys train set?
I'm not saying they are debatable benefits; I think it is likely to be very good for the country, especially looking forward a long time. We were talking about the effect on the regions, yet alone all the other advantages it gives. But if we go into it with a negative outlook, it will be harder to make it work.
And I think your 'upwards of £50 billion' is also wrong. You should read the reports and not listen to the likes of the IEA.
The phrase 'big boys train set' rather suggests that nothing I say, no evidence I put forward, will convince you.
I think you are right. Like you I have read the reports on other HS systems around Europe and I have also read the various reports on probable costs. So no I am not going to be changed in my view since like you I believe it is based on sound evidence and no one yet has made for me a convincing argument based on similar evidence in favour.
Looks like they may approve HS2 2day. Pity: it ought to be OS2 ("Ordinary Speed 2").
Not at all popular up here.
If UKIP actually bothered to campaign around here they could get closer in the ward - the anti HS2 stance could pick up alot of votes though it may have these already - will be interesting to see how they do.
(2 member ward, 2.5k Lab, 1k UKIP, 800 Con last time )
A good many tory MPs have actually noticed it would seem.
Tory rebels on HS2 are going against their party due to their constituency interests, rather than the wider picture - Lord Deighton
Funny. I thought they were elected to represent the best interests of their constituents. Is that actually meant to be a criticism?
It's a bit like when people attack politicans for 'popularism'...isn't that the point of democracy?
Yet people soon get over the arrival of a new motorway or housing estate, or a Tesco/Starbucks or McDonalds and strangely enough all end up using them and most would not want them to be closed down.
"We argue that the impact of new infrastructure depends predominantly on how urban actors react to the new opportunities offered by improved external accessibility. "
Anybody who writes sentences like that is a snake-oil salesman and anything they say is likely to be total b0ll0cks. "Urban actors", indeed.
Yes, it is a bit rich. But let's put it in a simpler form: "We argue that whether a new transport system will be successful depends greatly on people wanting to get the most out of it."
The problem we have in the UK is the steady growth of the power of Nimby's and how the political class has responded to them has given them more power.
You can't pick up a local paper without reading about campaigns against a new school/ supermarket/housing estate of link road.
It's all 'we want to live in the modern world' 'but no change here, thanks'. Everyone knows we have a vast housing shortage of houses, yet every scheme is fought tooth and nail. No wonder house builder have land banks, it can take a decade to get big plots ready for construction.
This country has had a woeful record on road and rail expenditure, and as a consequence we have the most crowded roads and rail lines in Europe. It's no come to the point where 'brave political decisions' have to be made and a lot of money spent.
HS2 is needed, from all rational examination of the evidence. Opponents spend there time flailing around latching onto alternatives that can all easily be shot down. But either they can't be bothered to read any of all the detailed reports and it's so much easier to fall back on to their own prejudices than actually bother to research anything. Or they know the alternatives are no good, it's just they rather not spend the money just now, they would rather let some else deal with it in 10 or 20 years, when they can of course then bitch in permanent gridlock why no one had the vision to deal with it.
To much of the British political spectrum has preferred to spend money on transfer payments rather than infrastructure spending.
I see the writer is as big a liar as you Scott, though he at least writes his own lies. I see he gets lots of support in the comments from every party viewpoint and country in the UK on the crapness of his article and how dire it is.
The two peas in a pod are you and Calamity Clegg. Totally unprincipled, no clue about what you stand for but with an unpleasant right-wing streak that you just can't help revealing to all.
Comments
Big coup for the UK.
Corp tax rate cuts bearing fruit.
* or rUk if Scotland cut their own throats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Europe Where? If you believe (as the studies show) that there is going to be a capacity crunch on the network, where is the 'elsewhere'? This has been looked into extensively, and none of the schemes give the same advantages as HS2. And also remember the chaos of the WCML upgrade.
Below is a review of some of the alternative schemes to HS2:
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/hs2-review-of-strategic-alternatives/hs2-review-of-strategic-alternatives.pdf
JJ, a real motorway between Scotland's two major cities. Minimum dual carriageway of the A9, a decent link from south west Scotland to the motorway system are 3 for starters.
Scotland could afford this sort of thing if it didn't have free prescriptions and free Uni fees.
And a huge boondoggle in Holyrood.
You can only spend your pocket money twice kiddies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Europe Where? If you believe (as the studies show) that there is going to be a capacity crunch on the network, where is the 'elsewhere'? This has been looked into extensively, and none of the schemes give the same advantages as HS2. And also remember the chaos of the WCML upgrade.
Below is a review of some of the alternative schemes to HS2:
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/hs2-review-of-strategic-alternatives/hs2-review-of-strategic-alternatives.pdf
JJ, a real motorway between Scotland's two major cities. Minimum dual carriageway of the A9, a decent link from south west Scotland to the motorway system are 3 for starters.
Scotland could afford this sort of thing if it didn't have free prescriptions and free Uni fees.
And a huge boondoggle in Holyrood.
You can only spend your pocket money twice kiddies.
LOL, what a turnip, what you really mean is if we were not paying for crossrail, London sewers , HS2 or previously paid for London Olympics and may other London centric projects.
You'd probably also find that casual labour drawn to London benefits from London's substantial BTL sector, which is something I don't think France has.
It depends on whether they cut back the AZ research/production that is already going on here.
Peston has a related article with this quote
"This is how one Treasury official put it to me the other day: "London is now the unchallenged capital of the world; it is wonderful.""
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27187398
That does not mean that other regional centres are not thriving in a way that we do not see here in the UK. Read up on Toulouse, for example. Its growth over recent years has been exceptional. No regional city in the UK comes close to matching it.
"argument has been replaced by a form of McCarthyism, policy debate by puerile insults. So we are told that Ukip’s campaign posters, spelling out the disastrous impact of uncontrolled immigration, are “racist”.
Similarly, a phoney storm is being generated by people dredging up online comments by even the most obscure Ukip members on social media sites. In this climate of witch hunting and guilt by association, any controversial remark or dodgy behaviour by a Ukip supporter is paraded as representative of the party as a whole.
But these negative, mud-slinging tactics have backfired spectacularly. The onslaught has only enhanced the rise of Ukip, as this weekend’s figures demonstrate. This is because most Britons see through all the synthetic indignation."
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/472785/Negative-tactics-show-Ukip-has-got-its-rivals-rattled
Paris fits that bill very well indeed.
Below is a review of some of the alternative schemes to HS2:
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/hs2-review-of-strategic-alternatives/hs2-review-of-strategic-alternatives.pdf
JJ, a real motorway between Scotland's two major cities. Minimum dual carriageway of the A9, a decent link from south west Scotland to the motorway system are 3 for starters.
Scotland could afford this sort of thing if it didn't have free prescriptions and free Uni fees.
And a huge boondoggle in Holyrood.
You can only spend your pocket money twice kiddies.
LOL, what a turnip, what you really mean is if we were not paying for crossrail, London sewers , HS2 or previously paid for London Olympics and may other London centric projects.
You chose a silly looking gold encrusted parly building, a commonwealth games, free medicine for millionaires, free University for trust fund kids and a pledge to reintroduce the benefit claimants mansion subsidy.
Brownenomics.
PS - The 2nd Forth crossing was a good idea I guess - more of that , less of the vanity projects.
But they're all different problems to the ones HS2 is meant to be fixing.
I'm afraid this is the usual multinat "tell you what you want to hear" before they shaft you. It's like Russell Brand telling you he'll always love you.
So many of the UK's larger towns and cities have lost their reason for being there and have not reinvented themselves.
Their onlY drawback is the idiot Tufton Buftons in exile setup, they have no mass appeal, which anyone looking to break the two party domination would need. As it is, they will Hoover up the old Gammer and blue rinse vote, appeal to the already disenchanted, but fail to convince the vast majority.
What they need is someone who will go on the goggle box and talk like a human being, ditch the socially conservative policies and get rid of the red faced old duffers.
Then I'm in.
But they won't, they think Snooty McGee is Jesus.
How many bears will be able to pay cash do you think
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/nick-cohen/2014/04/are-you-fit-to-be-british-take-the-ukip-test/
http://news.opinium.co.uk/sites/news.opinium.co.uk/files/vi_22_04_2014_trim.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Europe Where? If you believe (as the studies show) that there is going to be a capacity crunch on the network, where is the 'elsewhere'? This has been looked into extensively, and none of the schemes give the same advantages as HS2. And also remember the chaos of the WCML upgrade.
Below is a review of some of the alternative schemes to HS2:
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/hs2-review-of-strategic-alternatives/hs2-review-of-strategic-alternatives.pdf
JJ, a real motorway between Scotland's two major cities. Minimum dual carriageway of the A9, a decent link from south west Scotland to the motorway system are 3 for starters.
Scotland could afford this sort of thing if it didn't have free prescriptions and free Uni fees.
And a huge boondoggle in Holyrood.
You can only spend your pocket money twice kiddies.
I wouldn't try Uni fees given the complete dog's breakfast Willetts is making of them. In this instance Salmond will actually be right.
Labour losing is the only thing that matters in 2015
It was many years ago, but I went to University as a definite lefty and came out disillusioned with the middle class loons who generally proposed the theories. I remember a sociology lecturer who use to corner me in the bar to talk about Marxist theory. Very patronising, as I was a science undergraduate and not posh like he was.
One day he walked in looking a bit battered. He'd been hawking Socialist Worker round the local pubs and he claimed that a Fascist gang had followed him, alarmed by his success in converting the proletarian vanguard ... or something like that .
I tried hard not to laugh.
'History' = 'his story' is a particularly stupid line, as repeated (reportedly) by those women demanding Mary Beard front civilisation.
History, of course, is not a contraction of 'his story' but derived from the Latin historia. Which is feminine.
For me it was the people who led the left at college. They were universally the privately educated sons and daughters of wealthy lawyers/senior civil servants/Uni lecturers/Doctors etc.
When I talked about going to school in Wales with kids from council houses their eyes glazed over. They had clearly never encountered someone from a poor background in their lives.
Sadly, it is the extreme feminists who tend to get noticed, if only because they shout loudly, often for their own purposes.
1) Who lost the Second Punic War?
2) Who was in command of the losing side?
What do you call a camel with three humps? Humphrey.
I spent yesterday afternoon and evening crying like a disgraced televangelist because of the football, and used some very naughty words.
He was a dick.
We were later greeted by red rag worker sellers claiming they had won. I asked them what precisely they had done other than sell Lenin to idiots who missed the irony. I believe I was referred to as a fascist.
I laughed like a drain when Kinnock blew 92 and got very drunk and stoned, munch to my liberal girlfriends chagrin.
I could even help you dress for the occasion.
Who could 'official' mean? It sounds like the sort of thing an Osborne SPAD would say. However when I hear official I tend to think civil servant. If it was a civil servant they should be taken out and shot.
That's the sort of mistake that haunts for eternity, and it was the last footballer it should happen to.
I'm just glad I went back to an empty apartment.
You are of course right though. It was other Prime Ministers who signed the Single European act, the Maastricht Treaty and the Amsterdam Treaty - all Tory.
Yes, they are showing The A-Team film.
http://www.mablaw.com/2012/07/london-unitary-patent-court/
"The Lib Dems will be down just short of 500 candidates against 2010. This decline is concentrated, but is by no means exclusively, in London and the Mets. This represents a decline of some 15 per cent against 2010.
Another imponderable will be how the Lib Dem supporters will vote where no Lib Dem candidate is available."
http://www.conservativehome.com/localgovernment/2014/04/big-drop-in-number-of-lib-dem-council-candidates.html
And I think your 'upwards of £50 billion' is also wrong. You should read the reports and not listen to the likes of the IEA.
The phrase 'big boys train set' rather suggests that nothing I say, no evidence I put forward, will convince you.
Here's an LSE blog about the way HSR has been beneficial to Germany:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/archives/4126
And another:
http://www-sre.wu-wien.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa03/cdrom/papers/397.pdf
Which has the following quote: In other words, to get the most out, you need to be on board.
So tomorrow he'll say he's a lynch pin of Europe while telling the Poles, Balts and the rest of E Europe that Putin is really a great guy. I can't see that working for him.
Manchester has recently seen a big increase in jobs and inhabitants over the last ten years, Leeds has had a pretty decent run as well.
http://i.imgur.com/oeHbGyM.gif
Anybody who writes sentences like that is a snake-oil salesman and anything they say is likely to be total b0ll0cks. "Urban actors", indeed.
It was a fairly standard cold war game for the two sides to support 'freedom' or 'independence' movements in the other.
When did you attend?! Yes it was though they were stuck in the 80s and thought they were being trendy and progressive when they just sounded old fashioned. The kids were being indoctrinated for sure, it was unbelievable, and I only lasted a year.
I wrote a few essays that were pro Marxist, got six 2:1s and even got a first for one on utilitarianism, but as soon as I wrote one criticising immigration and the effect of globalisation I got 38%.. a FAIL!
(To be fair, my pro Enoch Powell essay got a 2:1.. which probably meant it deserved a first)
Bias.. nooooo
One lecturer used to quote extensively from the Guardian, and call anyone who disagreed a Daily Mail reader!
The moment I "turned" was when we had to read Enoch Powell's speech. I had never read it before, it seemed perfectly logical to me, and although I was uncomfortable with myself for agreeing with a perceived racist, I couldn't deny what he said fitted with my experience of working and living in London and the suburbs. They tried to pretend they were being neutral but gave us highlighters and asked us to find examples of racist speech, then presented a critique of the speech by Paul Foot as a neutral source!
The Modern Parents from Viz would've loved it, I used to literally say in seminars "You couldn't make it up!". I didn't know people like that really existed!
You can't pick up a local paper without reading about campaigns against a new school/ supermarket/housing estate of link road.
It's all 'we want to live in the modern world' 'but no change here, thanks'. Everyone knows we have a vast housing shortage of houses, yet every scheme is fought tooth and nail. No wonder house builder have land banks, it can take a decade to get big plots ready for construction.
This country has had a woeful record on road and rail expenditure, and as a consequence we have the most crowded roads and rail lines in Europe. It's no come to the point where 'brave political decisions' have to be made and a lot of money spent.
HS2 is needed, from all rational examination of the evidence. Opponents spend there time flailing around latching onto alternatives that can all easily be shot down. But either they can't be bothered to read any of all the detailed reports and it's so much easier to fall back on to their own prejudices than actually bother to research anything. Or they know the alternatives are no good, it's just they rather not spend the money just now, they would rather let some else deal with it in 10 or 20 years, when they can of course then bitch in permanent gridlock why no one had the vision to deal with it.
To much of the British political spectrum has preferred to spend money on transfer payments rather than infrastructure spending.
The two peas in a pod are you and Calamity Clegg. Totally unprincipled, no clue about what you stand for but with an unpleasant right-wing streak that you just can't help revealing to all.