You sure about that ? The amount being blown on HS2 surely has to factor in to the overall spending picture.
If anything it strengthens the need for HS2 as it highlights how expensive it is nowadays to do work to increase capacity and speeds on existing lines. Witness also the WCML upgrade debacle.
Heads should roll at the (nationalised) Network Rail over this.
I don't disagree with that, but I still think there's no good explanation for the 400kph specification (other than politicians being able to crow about it).
Because other people are currently building 350km/hr lines, and they're planning 400km/hr ones. The higher speed will probably be state-of-the-art when HS2 opens.
I also think you overestimate the cost savings that would be made if they went for a lower speed such as 300 km/hr.
But as it happens, I believe it's one of the stronger arguments against HS2 as it stands. The other being Euston ...
Yes. The London terminus should be between Kings Cross and St Pancras, which would enable combining the whole complex into a London Central. This would also have the side effect of going through the Guardian's office.
Lol!
Kings Cross and St Pancras are already joined together via their mutual Tube station, which is imaginatively titled "Kings Cross St Pancras".
What I don't get is, many of the problems they have encountered should have been known before they started the project. One problem they have is the Steventon level crossing west of Didcot. There is a bridge just down the track which would have to be rebuilt - at great expense - to enable the wires to be high enough over the level crossing. I've heard it suggested that they might not both and let the trains coast through that section of track!
ISTR that's not the only place where such 'coasting' happens: it's done in similar places across the network. They plan for such obstacles to be used as neutral sections (which are required every so often), and this allows them to have a much narrower bridge-catenary gap. So it might be fine and dandy, if I'm remembering correctly.
I'm not an engineer. Is this a case of the EU regulation being at fault, or a failure of the industry to implement it in a proportionate manner?
I'm not an engineer or a safety expert so I can't comment on whether the height at which it was originally installed was safe. But you've got to think that someone didn't read the rules correctly which is the sort of mistake that should not happen.
What I don't get is, many of the problems they have encountered should have been known before they started the project. One problem they have is the Steventon level crossing west of Didcot. There is a bridge just down the track which would have to be rebuilt - at great expense - to enable the wires to be high enough over the level crossing. I've heard it suggested that they might not both and let the trains coast through that section of track!
ISTR that's not the only place where such 'coasting' happens: it's done in similar places across the network. They plan for such obstacles to be used as neutral sections (which are required every so often), and this allows them to have a much narrower bridge-catenary gap. So it might be fine and dandy, if I'm remembering correctly.
I'm not an engineer. Is this a case of the EU regulation being at fault, or a failure of the industry to implement it in a proportionate manner?
IANAE, but it's a whole host of things combining. European railways generally have a larger loading gauge, meaning that they have more breathing room for electrification. For safety reasons, the European standards body wanted to increase clearances between cables and other objects. The EGIP scheme fell through the gap between the new and old regulations, and the ORR chose to hold NR to the new scheme.
Unfortunately, our electrified railways have a very good safety record, so the regulations might be trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
You sure about that ? The amount being blown on HS2 surely has to factor in to the overall spending picture.
If anything it strengthens the need for HS2 as it highlights how expensive it is nowadays to do work to increase capacity and speeds on existing lines. Witness also the WCML upgrade debacle.
Heads should roll at the (nationalised) Network Rail over this.
I don't disagree with that, but I still think there's no good explanation for the 400kph specification (other than politicians being able to crow about it).
Because other people are currently building 350km/hr lines, and they're planning 400km/hr ones. The higher speed will probably be state-of-the-art when HS2 opens.
I also think you overestimate the cost savings that would be made if they went for a lower speed such as 300 km/hr.
But as it happens, I believe it's one of the stronger arguments against HS2 as it stands. The other being Euston ...
Yes. The London terminus should be between Kings Cross and St Pancras, which would enable combining the whole complex into a London Central. This would also have the side effect of going through the Guardian's office.
Lol!
Kings Cross and St Pancras are already joined together via their mutual Tube station, which is imaginatively titled "Kings Cross St Pancras".
Still, I only have a limited number of English routes of the National Rail network left to do:
Up in the NW:
Barrow - Carlisle Heysham/Morecambe to Lancaster/Carnforth Clitheroe to Hellifield (Sunday only!)
Up in the NE:
Northallerton to Sunderland Bishop Auckland to Saltburn Middlesbrough to Whitby Stockton to Thornaby (Grosmont to Pickering, officially North Yorks Moors track, also appears on the National Rail map).
Lincs:
Barton to Habrough Retford to Barnetby via Gainsborough (Saturday only!)
Manc:
Stockport to Guide Bridge (Friday only!)
West Yorks:
Hebden Bridge to Burnley curve (ie. near Todmorden) Wakefield Westgate to Kirkgate curve Sandal & Abrigg to Wakefield Kirkgate curve
Bristol:
Patchway to Filton Abbey
Southwest:
Yeovil to Weymouth Newton Abbot to Penzance Newton Abbot to Paignton Exeter to Barnstaple Exeter to Exmouth Okehampton to Crediton Keyham (Plymouth) to Gunnislake Liskeard to Looe Par to Newquay Truro to Falmouth St Erth to St Ives
There isn't a Wakefield Kirkgate to Sandal & A[g]brigg curve.
Just seeing if you were awake, David
Of course, I should of [sic.] said "Fitzwilliam to Wakefield Kirkgate", it's used by certain Bradford services of Grand Central.
What I don't get is, many of the problems they have encountered should have been known before they started the project. One problem they have is the Steventon level crossing west of Didcot. There is a bridge just down the track which would have to be rebuilt - at great expense - to enable the wires to be high enough over the level crossing. I've heard it suggested that they might not both and let the trains coast through that section of track!
ISTR that's not the only place where such 'coasting' happens: it's done in similar places across the network. They plan for such obstacles to be used as neutral sections (which are required every so often), and this allows them to have a much narrower bridge-catenary gap. So it might be fine and dandy, if I'm remembering correctly.
I'm not an engineer. Is this a case of the EU regulation being at fault, or a failure of the industry to implement it in a proportionate manner?
IANAE, but it's a whole host of things combining. European railways generally have a larger loading gauge, meaning that they have more breathing room for electrification. For safety reasons, the European standards body wanted to increase clearances between cables and other objects. The EGIP scheme fell through the gap between the new and old regulations, and the ORR chose to hold NR to the new scheme.
Unfortunately, our electrified railways have a very good safety record, so the regulations might be trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
Your knowledge is very impressive.
How do you have all this at your fingertips?
Hint: i work in the industry, and I don't, and am stunned at how you manage to respond to every question so quickly and accurately.
Am I right in thinking that I'm amongst a small minority here on PB that thinks May is likely to be gone before the Party Conference?
The Tory Leadership is a fight in which I have no dog, but it's hard for me to imagine a Conference led by a lame one. I'm as aware as anybody of the problems associated with removing her but they won't diminish with time, and delay simply postpones recovery.
The fear of another GE is self-evident, but if it truly is level pegging under the current leadership, why would an election under a new leader not be viewed with some optimism?
What I don't get is, many of the problems they have encountered should have been known before they started the project. One problem they have is the Steventon level crossing west of Didcot. There is a bridge just down the track which would have to be rebuilt - at great expense - to enable the wires to be high enough over the level crossing. I've heard it suggested that they might not both and let the trains coast through that section of track!
ISTR that's not the only place where such 'coasting' happens: it's done in similar places across the network. They plan for such obstacles to be used as neutral sections (which are required every so often), and this allows them to have a much narrower bridge-catenary gap. So it might be fine and dandy, if I'm remembering correctly.
I'm not an engineer. Is this a case of the EU regulation being at fault, or a failure of the industry to implement it in a proportionate manner?
IANAE, but it's a whole host of things combining. European railways generally have a larger loading gauge, meaning that they have more breathing room for electrification. For safety reasons, the European standards body wanted to increase clearances between cables and other objects. The EGIP scheme fell through the gap between the new and old regulations, and the ORR chose to hold NR to the new scheme.
Unfortunately, our electrified railways have a very good safety record, so the regulations might be trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
Your knowledge is very impressive.
How do you have all this at your fingertips?
Hint: i work in the industry, and I don't, and am stunned at how you manage to respond to every question so quickly and accurately.
Thanks. It's all down to being interested in lots of things and reading a great deal. Also knowing *what* to read.
I have lots of time to read as the little 'un gets older, and most months I choose one topic to research in an amateur way. So it might be solar system formation, or the BR Standard locomotives, or my current one: requirements for a Martian inflatable hab. I write copious notes, and search functions are great. As is Google.
Annoyingly, my short-term memory's still not back to what it was.
Edit: and sadly, I'm not always accurate. But I'm always opinionated.
Fox and Davis on the news. They're seriously embarrassing. Time for the Tories to call it a day. I don't rate him at all but the time has come to call for Corbyn
Starmer negotiating Brexit would be a big plus. It would be a far better outcome.
Starmer's negociation would have us paying double for the same set up as now but we'd get a badge that says "Not in EU, honest !".
Small matter of Labour's leader fundamentally disagreeing with him too.
The Tory headbangers and the Labour leadership agree with 20-30% of the country on crashing out of the EU. Rather as we crashed out of the ERM 25 years ago. That was disastrous for 5-10 years; this action will be disastrous for rather longer.
The other 70-80% incl. Remainers like me would settle for 'Norway without the fjords', 'half in half out', or whatever you call it.
I don't want to see us crash out of the EU but you are wrong about the ERM. What was disastrous were the attempts to stay in it, not the manner of our exit. And the effects were certainly not disastrous for 5 to 10 years either.
What I don't get is, many of the problems they have encountered should have been known before they started the project. One problem they have is the Steventon level crossing west of Didcot. There is a bridge just down the track which would have to be rebuilt - at great expense - to enable the wires to be high enough over the level crossing. I've heard it suggested that they might not both and let the trains coast through that section of track!
ISTR that's not the only place where such 'coasting' happens: it's done in similar places across the network. They plan for such obstacles to be used as neutral sections (which are required every so often), and this allows them to have a much narrower bridge-catenary gap. So it might be fine and dandy, if I'm remembering correctly.
I'm not an engineer. Is this a case of the EU regulation being at fault, or a failure of the industry to implement it in a proportionate manner?
IANAE, but it's a whole host of things combining. European railways generally have a larger loading gauge, meaning that they have more breathing room for electrification. For safety reasons, the European standards body wanted to increase clearances between cables and other objects. The EGIP scheme fell through the gap between the new and old regulations, and the ORR chose to hold NR to the new scheme.
Unfortunately, our electrified railways have a very good safety record, so the regulations might be trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
Your knowledge is very impressive.
How do you have all this at your fingertips?
Hint: i work in the industry, and I don't, and am stunned at how you manage to respond to every question so quickly and accurately.
Thanks. It's all down to being interested in lots of things and reading a great deal. Also knowing *what* to read.
I have lots of time to read as the little 'un gets older, and most months I choose one topic to research in an amateur way. So it might be solar system formation, or the BR Standard locomotives, or my current one: requirements for a Martian inflatable hab. I write copious notes, and search functions are great. As is Google.
Annoyingly, my short-term memory's still not back to what it was.
Edit: and sadly, I'm not always accurate. But I'm always opinionated.
What I don't get is, many of the problems they have encountered should have been known before they started the project. One problem they have is the Steventon level crossing west of Didcot. There is a bridge just down the track which would have to be rebuilt - at great expense - to enable the wires to be high enough over the level crossing. I've heard it suggested that they might not both and let the trains coast through that section of track!
ISTR that's not the only place where such 'coasting' happens: it's done in similar places across the network. They plan for such obstacles to be used as neutral sections (which are required every so often), and this allows them to have a much narrower bridge-catenary gap. So it might be fine and dandy, if I'm remembering correctly.
I'm not an engineer. Is this a case of the EU regulation being at fault, or a failure of the industry to implement it in a proportionate manner?
IANAE, but it's a whole host of things combining. European railways generally have a larger loading gauge, meaning that they have more breathing room for electrification. For safety reasons, the European standards body wanted to increase clearances between cables and other objects. The EGIP scheme fell through the gap between the new and old regulations, and the ORR chose to hold NR to the new scheme.
Unfortunately, our electrified railways have a very good safety record, so the regulations might be trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
Your knowledge is very impressive.
How do you have all this at your fingertips?
Hint: i work in the industry, and I don't, and am stunned at how you manage to respond to every question so quickly and accurately.
Thanks. It's all down to being interested in lots of things and reading a great deal. Also knowing *what* to read.
I have lots of time to read as the little 'un gets older, and most months I choose one topic to research in an amateur way. So it might be solar system formation, or the BR Standard locomotives, or my current one: requirements for a Martian inflatable hab. I write copious notes, and search functions are great. As is Google.
Annoyingly, my short-term memory's still not back to what it was.
Edit: and sadly, I'm not always accurate. But I'm always opinionated.
To be honest JJ you come over as so in control of your brief whatever the topic under discussion, I had completely forgotten your medical issues. That is a great credit to you. I know we don't agree on a lot but it is a great pleasure debating with you.
Even having tripled, the cost of electrifying the GWR is still less than 10% of the cost of HS2, which will no doubt escalate further. No other European country is so myopic as to invest serious money in high speed diesel trains, rather than investing in electrification with all its direct and indirect benefits.
It is not a 'lie' that HS2 money could be spent on other schemes; it's a bizarre false choice imposed by the politicians.
We have been underinvesting in transport infrastructure while hosing away money on white elephants since the 1950s. When will we learn?
We are investing in electrification. It's just that the people doing the work have rather mucked up. Witness also the West Coast upgrade, which took much longer than expected, was about ten times over cost, and didn't deliver many of the promised advantages. I think one of the northern schemes isn't gong well, either.
Network Rail is brilliant at some things: maintenance and renewals generally go well, and much of heavy rail's unprecedented safety record over the last ten years is down to their work.
But I don't want to give them a blank cheque on electrification, especially after they've monumentally mucked up a similar project.
Edit: an you mean the cost so far. I'm far from convinced that NR have a handle on the costs even now, and that's part of the problem.
What I don't get is, many of the problems they have encountered should have been known before they started the project. One problem they have is the Steventon level crossing west of Didcot. There is a bridge just down the track which would have to be rebuilt - at great expense - to enable the wires to be high enough over the level crossing. I've heard it suggested that they might not both and let the trains coast through that section of track!
As someone who uses that road and is facing the bridge being closed for a year (with no simple alternative route around that doesn't add a lot of miles), that would be a relief. It's the main road out of Steventon towards the A34 and Didcot.
Fox and Davis on the news. They're seriously embarrassing. Time for the Tories to call it a day. I don't rate him at all but the time has come to call for Corbyn
Starmer negotiating Brexit would be a big plus. It would be a far better outcome.
Starmer's negociation would have us paying double for the same set up as now but we'd get a badge that says "Not in EU, honest !".
Small matter of Labour's leader fundamentally disagreeing with him too.
Corbyn would give Starmer a fairly free hand. Immigration is not such a shibboleth to Labour, so concessions in that area would get a much more constructive approach elsewhere on trade and other issues.
I agree , Corbyn would be ambivalent to the crap "all the downsides of in and none of the upside of out" deal that Starmer would get handed to him.
You sure about that ? The amount being blown on HS2 surely has to factor in to the overall spending picture.
If anything it strengthens the need for HS2 as it highlights how expensive it is nowadays to do work to increase capacity and speeds on existing lines. Witness also the WCML upgrade debacle.
Heads should roll at the (nationalised) Network Rail over this.
I don't disagree with that, but I still think there's no good explanation for the 400kph specification (other than politicians being able to crow about it).
Because other people are currently building 350km/hr lines, and they're planning 400km/hr ones. The higher speed will probably be state-of-the-art when HS2 opens.
I also think you overestimate the cost savings that would be made if they went for a lower speed such as 300 km/hr.
But as it happens, I believe it's one of the stronger arguments against HS2 as it stands. The other being Euston ...
Yes. The London terminus should be between Kings Cross and St Pancras, which would enable combining the whole complex into a London Central. This would also have the side effect of going through the Guardian's office.
Lol!
Kings Cross and St Pancras are already joined together via their mutual Tube station, which is imaginatively titled "Kings Cross St Pancras".
What I don't get is, many of the problems they have encountered should have been known before they started the project. One problem they have is the Steventon level crossing west of Didcot. There is a bridge just down the track which would have to be rebuilt - at great expense - to enable the wires to be high enough over the level crossing. I've heard it suggested that they might not both and let the trains coast through that section of track!
ISTR that's not the only place where such 'coasting' happens: it's done in similar places across the network. They plan for such obstacles to be used as neutral sections (which are required every so often), and this allows them to have a much narrower bridge-catenary gap. So it might be fine and dandy, if I'm remembering correctly.
I'm not an engineer. Is this a case of the EU regulation being at fault, or a failure of the industry to implement it in a proportionate manner?
IANAE, but it's a whole host of things combining. European railways generally have a larger loading gauge, meaning that they have more breathing room for electrification. For safety reasons, the European standards body wanted to increase clearances between cables and other objects. The EGIP scheme fell through the gap between the new and old regulations, and the ORR chose to hold NR to the new scheme.
Unfortunately, our electrified railways have a very good safety record, so the regulations might be trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
Your knowledge is very impressive.
How do you have all this at your fingertips?
Hint: i work in the industry, and I don't, and am stunned at how you manage to respond to every question so quickly and accurately.
Even having tripled, the cost of electrifying the GWR is still less than 10% of the cost of HS2, which will no doubt escalate further. No other European country is so myopic as to invest serious money in high speed diesel trains, rather than investing in electrification with all its direct and indirect benefits.
It is not a 'lie' that HS2 money could be spent on other schemes; it's a bizarre false choice imposed by the politicians.
We have been underinvesting in transport infrastructure while hosing away money on white elephants since the 1950s. When will we learn?
We are investing in electrification. It's just that the people doing the work have rather mucked up. Witness also the West Coast upgrade, which took much longer than expected, was about ten times over cost, and didn't deliver many of the promised advantages. I think one of the northern schemes isn't gong well, either.
Network Rail is brilliant at some things: maintenance and renewals generally go well, and much of heavy rail's unprecedented safety record over the last ten years is down to their work.
But I don't want to give them a blank cheque on electrification, especially after they've monumentally mucked up a similar project.
Edit: an you mean the cost so far. I'm far from convinced that NR have a handle on the costs even now, and that's part of the problem.
What I don't get is, many of the problems they have encountered should have been known before they started the project. One problem they have is the Steventon level crossing west of Didcot. There is a bridge just down the track which would have to be rebuilt - at great expense - to enable the wires to be high enough over the level crossing. I've heard it suggested that they might not both and let the trains coast through that section of track!
As someone who uses that road and is facing the bridge being closed for a year (with no simple alternative route around that doesn't add a lot of miles), that would be a relief. It's the main road out of Steventon towards the A34 and Didcot.
I'd have thought the solution would be to build a new bridge but it looks pretty tight for land either side. Also, the original bridge is Grade II listed.
Both, I think the forced choice between A Tory v Corbyn where Corbyn has a decent chance of becoming PM will force the mind of Tory Remain voters especially.
Do you think if push came to shove Vince Cable would support a minority Jeremy Corbyn-led Government ?
On a confidence and supply basis I think so.
Mike thought the Lib Dems wouldn't go into a future coalition with any party until they were on 35 MPs plus.
I think Lib Dems would want a say in the Budget.
I can't see them signing up to support the Budget without agreeing quite a lot in advance - eg they wouldn't agree to CT rising to 26%.
Fox and Davis on the news. They're seriously embarrassing. Time for the Tories to call it a day. I don't rate him at all but the time has come to call for Corbyn
Starmer negotiating Brexit would be a big plus. It would be a far better outcome.
Starmer's negociation would have us paying double for the same set up as now but we'd get a badge that says "Not in EU, honest !".
Small matter of Labour's leader fundamentally disagreeing with him too.
The Tory headbangers and the Labour leadership agree with 20-30% of the country on crashing out of the EU. Rather as we crashed out of the ERM 25 years ago. That was disastrous for 5-10 years; this action will be disastrous for rather longer.
The other 70-80% incl. Remainers like me would settle for 'Norway without the fjords', 'half in half out', or whatever you call it.
Crashing out of the ERM was one of the best things which happened to the UK economy in recent decades.
The alternative would have been permanent recession, unemployment at over three million throughout the 1990s and hundreds of thousands of families having their homes repossessed.
The actual disaster relating to the UK's membership of the ERM was joining it in the first place rather than leaving it.
Although it would have been even better if the government had chosen to leave the ERM of its own will rather than desperately trying to remain in it until forced out.
Am I right in thinking that I'm amongst a small minority here on PB that thinks May is likely to be gone before the Party Conference?
The Tory Leadership is a fight in which I have no dog, but it's hard for me to imagine a Conference led by a lame one. I'm as aware as anybody of the problems associated with removing her but they won't diminish with time, and delay simply postpones recovery.
The fear of another GE is self-evident, but if it truly is level pegging under the current leadership, why would an election under a new leader not be viewed with some optimism?
But would Con do better with another leader?
I think highly possible they wouldn't.
May leads Corbyn as Best PM by 46-38 in today's MORI.
Fox and Davis on the news. They're seriously embarrassing. Time for the Tories to call it a day. I don't rate him at all but the time has come to call for Corbyn
Starmer negotiating Brexit would be a big plus. It would be a far better outcome.
A huge improvement. Fox and Davis give new meaning to the word vacuous. They are the 'Gaping Hole'.
Am I right in thinking that I'm amongst a small minority here on PB that thinks May is likely to be gone before the Party Conference?
The Tory Leadership is a fight in which I have no dog, but it's hard for me to imagine a Conference led by a lame one. I'm as aware as anybody of the problems associated with removing her but they won't diminish with time, and delay simply postpones recovery.
The fear of another GE is self-evident, but if it truly is level pegging under the current leadership, why would an election under a new leader not be viewed with some optimism?
Foxinsox thinks similarly but yes I think you are a minority for sure. I think she lasts until Brexit is done.
Dr Fox isn't negotiating Brexit - he's supposed to be everywhere *except* the EU to get trade deals.
So why would this random guy expect Fox to be on a committee when he's got nothing to do with that remit?
Someone negotiating new deals needs to know in detail about the EU one?
Say we end up agreeing to stick with current standards on toasters, but Liam over in country X wants to offer up reduced toaster standards as a chip to get them to accept something else?
Crashing out of the ERM was one of the best things which happened to the UK economy in recent decades.
The alternative would have been permanent recession, unemployment at over three million throughout the 1990s and hundreds of thousands of families having their homes repossessed.
If you could rerun the 97-10 period without Gordon Brown but instead with Ken Clarke in charge and in which the UK joined the Euro, which would you chose?
What I don't get is, many of the problems they have encountered shorack!
ISTR that's not the only place where such 'coasting' happens: it's done in similar places across the network. They plan for such obstacles to be used as neutral sections (which are required every so often), and this allows them to have a much narrower bridge-catenary gap. So it might be fine and dandy, if I'm remembering correctly.
I'm not an engineer. Is this a case of the EU regulation being at fault, or a failure of the industry to implement it in a proportionate manner?
IANAE, but it's a whole host of things combining. European railways generally have a larger loading gauge, meaning that they have more breathing room for electrification. For safety reasons, the European standards body wanted to increase clearances between cables and other objects. The EGIP scheme fell through the gap between the new and old regulations, and the ORR chose to hold NR to the new scheme.
Unfortunately, our electrified railways have a very good safety record, so the regulations might be trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
Your knowledge is very impressive.
How do you have all this at your fingertips?
Hint: i work in the industry, and I don't, and am stunned at how you manage to respond to every question so quickly and accurately.
I like their general look, I like the "walk-through" connections between the carriages (presaged by the Class 378s on Overground, and S Stock on the Tube), and I like the new passenger information displays.
OTOH, while there are a limited number of transverse (2+2) seating, most seating seems to be longitudinal ("Tube style") - I really don't like sitting sideways, especially on long journeys - makes photography awkward
Dr Fox isn't negotiating Brexit - he's supposed to be everywhere *except* the EU to get trade deals.
So why would this random guy expect Fox to be on a committee when he's got nothing to do with that remit?
Someone negotiating new deals needs to know in detail about the EU one?
Say we end up agreeing to stick with current standards on toasters, but Liam over in country X wants to offer up reduced toaster standards as a chip to get them to accept something else?
I don't think that makes sense.
"I'd like to sign a trade treaty with you. No need to talk about it for long because I've got a photocopy of our old EU one and I've already Tippexed out the names.
You'll love the chapter on toasters. Apparently that took ages."
So no, I'm not buying it. He shouldn't be on that committee.
Am I right in thinking that I'm amongst a small minority here on PB that thinks May is likely to be gone before the Party Conference?
The Tory Leadership is a fight in which I have no dog, but it's hard for me to imagine a Conference led by a lame one. I'm as aware as anybody of the problems associated with removing her but they won't diminish with time, and delay simply postpones recovery.
The fear of another GE is self-evident, but if it truly is level pegging under the current leadership, why would an election under a new leader not be viewed with some optimism?
Foxinsox thinks similarly but yes I think you are a minority for sure. I think she lasts until Brexit is done.
I think it has been rumoured that she wanted to quit on GE Day + 1 and the men in grey suits wouldn't let her. If so I imagine they still won't.
Crashing out of the ERM was one of the best things which happened to the UK economy in recent decades.
The alternative would have been permanent recession, unemployment at over three million throughout the 1990s and hundreds of thousands of families having their homes repossessed.
If you could rerun the 97-10 period without Gordon Brown but instead with Ken Clarke in charge and in which the UK joined the Euro, which would you chose?
That's not a choice which was ever possible as Labour were always going to win in 1997.
The question was what sort of economy would Brown get to play with.
Would you rerun the 92-97 period with continued membership of the ERM at the cost of permanent recession, continuous three million plus unemployed and hundreds of thousands of families having their homes repossessed ?
Would you rather Blair and Brown inherited a strong economy without ERM membership or a ruined economy with ERM membership ?
Am I right in thinking that I'm amongst a small minority here on PB that thinks May is likely to be gone before the Party Conference?
The Tory Leadership is a fight in which I have no dog, but it's hard for me to imagine a Conference led by a lame one. I'm as aware as anybody of the problems associated with removing her but they won't diminish with time, and delay simply postpones recovery.
The fear of another GE is self-evident, but if it truly is level pegging under the current leadership, why would an election under a new leader not be viewed with some optimism?
Foxinsox thinks similarly but yes I think you are a minority for sure. I think she lasts until Brexit is done.
You are probably right, although it smacks of denial.
Even having tripled, the cost of electrifying the GWR is still less than 10% of the cost of HS2, which will no doubt escalate further. No other European country is so myopic as to invest serious money in high speed diesel trains, rather than investing in electrification with all its direct and indirect benefits.
It is not a 'lie' that HS2 money could be spent on other schemes; it's a bizarre false choice imposed by the politicians.
We have been underinvesting in transport infrastructure while hosing away money on white elephants since the 1950s. When will we learn?
We are investing in electrification. It's just that the people doing the work have rather mucked up. Witness also the West Coast upgrade, which took much longer than expected, was about ten times over cost, and didn't deliver many of the promised advantages. I think one of the northern schemes isn't gong well, either.
Network Rail is brilliant at some things: maintenance and renewals generally go well, and much of heavy rail's unprecedented safety record over the last ten years is down to their work.
But I don't want to give them a blank cheque on electrification, especially after they've monumentally mucked up a similar project.
Edit: an you mean the cost so far. I'm far from convinced that NR have a handle on the costs even now, and that's part of the problem.
What I don't get is, many of the problems they have encountered should have been known before they started the project. One problem they have is the Steventon level crossing west of Didcot. There is a bridge just down the track which would have to be rebuilt - at great expense - to enable the wires to be high enough over the level crossing. I've heard it suggested that they might not both and let the trains coast through that section of track!
As someone who uses that road and is facing the bridge being closed for a year (with no simple alternative route around that doesn't add a lot of miles), that would be a relief. It's the main road out of Steventon towards the A34 and Didcot.
I'd have thought the solution would be to build a new bridge but it looks pretty tight for land either side. Also, the original bridge is Grade II listed.
Apparently there was a suggestion of lowering the track rather than raising the bridge, which would be a bit more expensive but far less disruptive.
Even having tripled, the cost of electrifying the GWR is still less than 10% of the cost of HS2, which will no doubt escalate further. No other European country is so myopic as to invest serious money in high speed diesel trains, rather than investing in electrification with all its direct and indirect benefits.
It is not a 'lie' that HS2 money could be spent on other schemes; it's a bizarre false choice imposed by the politicians.
We have been underinvesting in transport infrastructure while hosing away money on white elephants since the 1950s. When will we learn?
We are investing in electrification. It's just that the people doing the work have rather mucked up. Witness also the West Coast upgrade, which took much longer than expected, was about ten times over cost, and didn't deliver many of the promised advantages. I think one of the northern schemes isn't gong well, either.
Network Rail is brilliant at some things: maintenance and renewals generally go well, and much of heavy rail's unprecedented safety record over the last ten years is down to their work.
But I don't want to give them a blank cheque on electrification, especially after they've monumentally mucked up a similar project.
Edit: an you mean the cost so far. I'm far from convinced that NR have a handle on the costs even now, and that's part of the problem.
What I don't get is, many of the problems they have encountered should have been known before they started the project. One problem they have is the Steventon level crossing west of Didcot. There is a bridge just down the track which would have to be rebuilt - at great expense - to enable the wires to be high enough over the level crossing. I've heard it suggested that they might not both and let the trains coast through that section of track!
As someone who uses that road and is facing the bridge being closed for a year (with no simple alternative route around that doesn't add a lot of miles), that would be a relief. It's the main road out of Steventon towards the A34 and Didcot.
I'd have thought the solution would be to build a new bridge but it looks pretty tight for land either side. Also, the original bridge is Grade II listed.
Apparently there was a suggestion of lowering the track rather than raising the bridge, which would be a bit more expensive but far less disruptive.
That's what normally happens, but I think that might need the level crossings to close.
What I don't get is, many of the problems they have encountered shorack!
ISTR that's not the only place where such 'coasting' happens: it's done in similar places across the network. They plan for such obstacles to be used as neutral sections (which are required every so often), and this allows them to have a much narrower bridge-catenary gap. So it might be fine and dandy, if I'm remembering correctly.
I'm not an engineer. Is this a case of the EU regulation being at fault, or a failure of the industry to implement it in a proportionate manner?
IANAE, but it's a whole host of things combining. European railways generally have a larger loading gauge, meaning that they have more breathing room for electrification. For safety reasons, the European standards body wanted to increase clearances between cables and other objects. The EGIP scheme fell through the gap between the new and old regulations, and the ORR chose to hold NR to the new scheme.
Unfortunately, our electrified railways have a very good safety record, so the regulations might be trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
Your knowledge is very impressive.
How do you have all this at your fingertips?
Hint: i work in the industry, and I don't, and am stunned at how you manage to respond to every question so quickly and accurately.
I like their general look, I like the "walk-through" connections between the carriages (presaged by the Class 378s on Overground, and S Stock on the Tube), and I like the new passenger information displays.
OTOH, while there are a limited number of transverse (2+2) seating, most seating seems to be longitudinal ("Tube style") - I really don't like sitting sideways, especially on long journeys - makes photography awkward
Yes, that's spot on. They are designed to be high-capacity, so seating is limited.
Fox and Davis on the news. They're seriously embarrassing. Time for the Tories to call it a day. I don't rate him at all but the time has come to call for Corbyn
Starmer negotiating Brexit would be a big plus. It would be a far better outcome.
Starmer's negociation would have us paying double for the same set up as now but we'd get a badge that says "Not in EU, honest !".
Small matter of Labour's leader fundamentally disagreeing with him too.
The Tory headbangers and the Labour leadership agree with 20-30% of the country on crashing out of the EU. Rather as we crashed out of the ERM 25 years ago. That was disastrous for 5-10 years; this action will be disastrous for rather longer.
The other 70-80% incl. Remainers like me would settle for 'Norway without the fjords', 'half in half out', or whatever you call it.
Crashing out of the ERM was one of the best things which happened to the UK economy in recent decades.
The alternative would have been permanent recession, unemployment at over three million throughout the 1990s and hundreds of thousands of families having their homes repossessed.
The actual disaster relating to the UK's membership of the ERM was joining it in the first place rather than leaving it.
Although it would have been even better if the government had chosen to leave the ERM of its own will rather than desperately trying to remain in it until forced out.
In that it put a rancid Tory government out of its misery I can see where you're coming from. I think they'd have been booted out anyway but that mismanagement certainly sealed the deal
Well, I've never eaten Walkers' crisps, but if Letts is boycotting them and says they have a lefty sponsor, I'll go and buy some.
So there.
My goodness! You call yourself an Englishman and you've never eaten Walkers' Crisps?
(Puts hand to brow and faints)
I'd never eaten crisps at all until a few years ago, when they had some packets at a poker game. I struggled to open one until someone showed me the trick of pulling at the sides. The group (mostly old friends) were affectionately amused at their oddball partner, and speculated luridly about what other British pastimes they could introduce me to.
Crashing out of the ERM was one of the best things which happened to the UK economy in recent decades.
The alternative would have been permanent recession, unemployment at over three million throughout the 1990s and hundreds of thousands of families having their homes repossessed.
If you could rerun the 97-10 period without Gordon Brown but instead with Ken Clarke in charge and in which the UK joined the Euro, which would you chose?
That's not a choice which was ever possible as Labour were always going to win in 1997.
The question was what sort of economy would Brown get to play with.
Would you rerun the 92-97 period with continued membership of the ERM at the cost of permanent recession, continuous three million plus unemployed and hundreds of thousands of families having their homes repossessed ?
Would you rather Blair and Brown inherited a strong economy without ERM membership or a ruined economy with ERM membership ?
As with your answer I think that's a false premise.
If the UK government had made exactly the same decisions about interest rates between 90-97 but had kept the policy of shadowing the DM a secret during the period when we were in the ERM, would anything have been different? Perhaps the only difference is that Soros wouldn't be a household name, and the government would have got more credit for dealing with a housing bubble and getting inflation under control.
Even having tripled, the cost of electrifying the GWR is still less than 10% of the cost of HS2, which will no doubt escalate further. No other European country is so myopic as to invest serious money in high speed diesel trains, rather than investing in electrification with all its direct and indirect benefits.
It is not a 'lie' that HS2 money could be spent on other schemes; it's a bizarre false choice imposed by the politicians.
We have been underinvesting in transport infrastructure while hosing away money on white elephants since the 1950s. When will we learn?
We are investing in electrification. It's just that the people doing the work have rather mucked up. Witness also the West Coast upgrade, which took much longer than expected, was about ten times over cost, and didn't deliver many of the promised advantages. I think one of the northern schemes isn't gong well, either.
Network Rail is brilliant at some things: maintenance and renewals generally go well, and much of heavy rail's unprecedented safety record over the last ten years is down to their work.
But I don't want to give them a blank cheque on electrification, especially after they've monumentally mucked up a similar project.
Edit: an you mean the cost so far. I'm far from convinced that NR have a handle on the costs even now, and that's part of the problem.
What I don't get is, many of the problems they have encountered should have been known before they started the project. One problem they have is the Steventon level crossing west of Didcot. There is a bridge just down the track which would have to be rebuilt - at great expense - to enable the wires to be high enough over the level crossing. I've heard it suggested that they might not both and let the trains coast through that section of track!
As someone who uses that road and is facing the bridge being closed for a year (with no simple alternative route around that doesn't add a lot of miles), that would be a relief. It's the main road out of Steventon towards the A34 and Didcot.
I'd have thought the solution would be to build a new bridge but it looks pretty tight for land either side. Also, the original bridge is Grade II listed.
Apparently there was a suggestion of lowering the track rather than raising the bridge, which would be a bit more expensive but far less disruptive.
Before reopening in 2012, The Epping Ongar Railway lowered the track on the section under the M11 near North Weald - the bridge was built with clearance only for "Tube" sized trains (which were in use 1957 to 1994).
Is the cancellation of electrification something that a cross party alliance could vote down and reverse? Or is this a government policy which has no parliamentary scrutiny?
Well, I've never eaten Walkers' crisps, but if Letts is boycotting them and says they have a lefty sponsor, I'll go and buy some.
So there.
My goodness! You call yourself an Englishman and you've never eaten Walkers' Crisps?
(Puts hand to brow and faints)
I'd never eaten crisps at all until a few years ago, when they had some packets at a poker game. I struggled to open one until someone showed me the trick of pulling at the sides. The group (mostly old friends) were affectionately amused at their oddball partner, and speculated luridly about what other British pastimes they could introduce me to.
My flabber is well and truly ghasted. I can't imagine someone living in the UK never having had crisps.
As they sell 132,000 tons of them a year (*), I guess someone else has been having your share!
I make that just under two kilos of crisps per year, per person. I think.
Hannan continues to get worse, now using Uganda as an inspiration for our future economic model.
He also doesn't seem to know how low the EU's weighted tariffs are compared with some of the examples he gives of countries that have supposedly 'dismantled their trade barriers'. Truly a vacuous charlatan.
Is the cancellation of electrification something that a cross party alliance could vote down and reverse? Or is this a government policy which has no parliamentary scrutiny?
This policy is sound economic sense on the Cardiff to Swansea section. Brand new multi fuel trains are being introduced so that the time from Cardiff to Swansea will be the same even if it is electrified. It is the advancement of technology. Sure some on here can explain the fantastic new generation of train which I believe are being manufactured in the UK
Hannan continues to get worse, now using Uganda as an inspiration for our future economic model.
He also doesn't seem to know how low the EU's weighted tariffs are compared with some of the examples he gives of countries that have supposedly 'dismantled their trade barriers'. Truly a vacuous charlatan.
Is the cancellation of electrification something that a cross party alliance could vote down and reverse? Or is this a government policy which has no parliamentary scrutiny?
This policy is sound economic sense on the Cardiff to Swansea section. Brand new multi fuel trains are being introduced so that the time from Cardiff to Swansea will be the same even if it is electrified. It is the advancement of technology. Sure some on here can explain the fantastic new generation of train which I believe are being manufactured in the UK
I think you're referring to the Hitachi IEP, and they're a terrible project that will cost passengers dear.
Hannan continues to get worse, now using Uganda as an inspiration for our future economic model.
He also doesn't seem to know how low the EU's weighted tariffs are compared with some of the examples he gives of countries that have supposedly 'dismantled their trade barriers'. Truly a vacuous charlatan.
Good discussion with Jacob Rees Mogg and Caroline Flint with Boulton on Sky and remarkable agreement between them. We tend to have sub titles on sometimes in our old age and it was hilarious when Jacob responded to Boulton re Heseltine and Blair interventions in Latin and the sub titles couldn't handle it.
It may be unlikely but Jacob is getting a cult following (where have we heard that before)
Is the cancellation of electrification something that a cross party alliance could vote down and reverse? Or is this a government policy which has no parliamentary scrutiny?
This policy is sound economic sense on the Cardiff to Swansea section. Brand new multi fuel trains are being introduced so that the time from Cardiff to Swansea will be the same even if it is electrified. It is the advancement of technology. Sure some on here can explain the fantastic new generation of train which I believe are being manufactured in the UK
I think you're referring to the Hitachi IEP, and they're a terrible project that will cost passengers dear.
Well they looked fabulous on ITV Wales news tonight
Mike thought the Lib Dems wouldn't go into a future coalition with any party until they were on 35 MPs plus.
Replaying the events of six weeks ago, if the Conservatives had won 10 fewer seats and Labour 10 more seats, that would have left Lab+SNP+Green+Plaid+Others on 313 and the Cons+DUP on 317 leaving the 12 LD MPs holding the balance (the rest being the Speaker and the 7 absent SF members)
Farron would have had to take a decision - if one side is clearly going to win a majority, "no coalition" is reasonable because it'll never happen. In this scenario, the LDs would have been in a very difficult place.
The point is the MP numbers don't matter - we were in a Coalition with 57 in 2010 and not with 62 in 2005 because one of the two main parties won a majority.
It's also not about joining a Coalition - as the DUP may discover, the price of simply propping up a Government is heavy even if you are only supporting them on C&S.
At some point, the Party will face this decision again - the folk memory of the Coalition will make selling the idea of working with the Conservatives very difficult but the LDs are no fans of Corbyn either. When you are put on the spot you will get it wrong (at least according to some and usually those who shout or tweet the loudest).
What I don't get is, many of the problems they have encountered should have been known before they started the project. One problem they have is the Steventon level crossing west of Didcot. There is a bridge just down the track which would have to be rebuilt - at great expense - to enable the wires to be high enough over the level crossing. I've heard it suggested that they might not both and let the trains coast through that section of track!
ISTR that's not the only place where such 'coasting' happens: it's done in similar places across the network. They plan for such obstacles to be used as neutral sections (which are required every so often), and this allows them to have a much narrower bridge-catenary gap. So it might be fine and dandy, if I'm remembering correctly.
I'm not an engineer. Is this a case of the EU regulation being at fault, or a failure of the industry to implement it in a proportionate manner?
IANAE, but it's a whole host of things combining. European railways generally have a larger loading gauge, meaning that they have more breathing room for electrification. For safety reasons, the European standards body wanted to increase clearances between cables and other objects. The EGIP scheme fell through the gap between the new and old regulations, and the ORR chose to hold NR to the new scheme.
Unfortunately, our electrified railways have a very good safety record, so the regulations might be trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
Your knowledge is very impressive.
How do you have all this at your fingertips?
Hint: i work in the industry, and I don't, and am stunned at how you manage to respond to every question so quickly and accurately.
Thanks. It's all down to being interested in lots of things and reading a great deal. Also knowing *what* to read.
I have lots of time to read as the little 'un gets older, and most months I choose one topic to research in an amateur way. So it might be solar system formation, or the BR Standard locomotives, or my current one: requirements for a Martian inflatable hab. I write copious notes, and search functions are great. As is Google.
Annoyingly, my short-term memory's still not back to what it was.
Edit: and sadly, I'm not always accurate. But I'm always opinionated.
I'm another rail industry person. We seem to be well represented on PB! Which I suppose indicates the inherently political nature of the railways...
Mike thought the Lib Dems wouldn't go into a future coalition with any party until they were on 35 MPs plus.
Replaying the events of six weeks ago, if the Conservatives had won 10 fewer seats and Labour 10 more seats, that would have left Lab+SNP+Green+Plaid+Others on 313 and the Cons+DUP on 317 leaving the 12 LD MPs holding the balance (the rest being the Speaker and the 7 absent SF members)
Farron would have had to take a decision - if one side is clearly going to win a majority, "no coalition" is reasonable because it'll never happen. In this scenario, the LDs would have been in a very difficult place.
The point is the MP numbers don't matter - we were in a Coalition with 57 in 2010 and not with 62 in 2005 because one of the two main parties won a majority.
It's also not about joining a Coalition - as the DUP may discover, the price of simply propping up a Government is heavy even if you are only supporting them on C&S.
At some point, the Party will face this decision again - the folk memory of the Coalition will make selling the idea of working with the Conservatives very difficult but the LDs are no fans of Corbyn either. When you are put on the spot you will get it wrong (at least according to some and usually those who shout or tweet the loudest).
Remarkable comments from Vince Cable saying that the Country should coalesce around Phil Hammond, who he considers the only serious politician on Brexit, and condemning Corbyn in no uncertain terms referring to Venezuela economics from him
Is the cancellation of electrification something that a cross party alliance could vote down and reverse? Or is this a government policy which has no parliamentary scrutiny?
This policy is sound economic sense on the Cardiff to Swansea section. Brand new multi fuel trains are being introduced so that the time from Cardiff to Swansea will be the same even if it is electrified. It is the advancement of technology. Sure some on here can explain the fantastic new generation of train which I believe are being manufactured in the UK
I think you're referring to the Hitachi IEP, and they're a terrible project that will cost passengers dear.
Indeed, in diesel mode the IEPs will have worse performance than the 30 year old HSTs they are replacing. And having to make all the trains bi-mode due to the electrification cock ups will have cost DfT dear.
Mike thought the Lib Dems wouldn't go into a future coalition with any party until they were on 35 MPs plus.
Replaying the events of six weeks ago, if the Conservatives had won 10 fewer seats and Labour 10 more seats, that would have left Lab+SNP+Green+Plaid+Others on 313 and the Cons+DUP on 317 leaving the 12 LD MPs holding the balance (the rest being the Speaker and the 7 absent SF members)
Farron would have had to take a decision - if one side is clearly going to win a majority, "no coalition" is reasonable because it'll never happen. In this scenario, the LDs would have been in a very difficult place.
The point is the MP numbers don't matter - we were in a Coalition with 57 in 2010 and not with 62 in 2005 because one of the two main parties won a majority.
It's also not about joining a Coalition - as the DUP may discover, the price of simply propping up a Government is heavy even if you are only supporting them on C&S.
At some point, the Party will face this decision again - the folk memory of the Coalition will make selling the idea of working with the Conservatives very difficult but the LDs are no fans of Corbyn either. When you are put on the spot you will get it wrong (at least according to some and usually those who shout or tweet the loudest).
Remarkable comments from Vince Cable saying that the Country should coalesce around Phil Hammond, who he considers the only serious politician on Brexit, and condemning Corbyn in no uncertain terms referring to Venezuela economics from him
Interesting circle for him to square if Hammond does become PM, then.
I'd expect off the back of his comment there for him to support him.
I'm another rail industry person. We seem to be well represented on PB! Which I suppose indicates the inherently political nature of the railways...
Sadly I'm not in the rail industry. I was in embedded software, although I have a vast interest in most forms of engineering, from chips to ships through rockets.
Mike thought the Lib Dems wouldn't go into a future coalition with any party until they were on 35 MPs plus.
Replaying the events of six weeks ago, if the Conservatives had won 10 fewer seats and Labour 10 more seats, that would have left Lab+SNP+Green+Plaid+Others on 313 and the Cons+DUP on 317 leaving the 12 LD MPs holding the balance (the rest being the Speaker and the 7 absent SF members)
Farron would have had to take a decision - if one side is clearly going to win a majority, "no coalition" is reasonable because it'll never happen. In this scenario, the LDs would have been in a very difficult place.
The point is the MP numbers don't matter - we were in a Coalition with 57 in 2010 and not with 62 in 2005 because one of the two main parties won a majority.
It's also not about joining a Coalition - as the DUP may discover, the price of simply propping up a Government is heavy even if you are only supporting them on C&S.
At some point, the Party will face this decision again - the folk memory of the Coalition will make selling the idea of working with the Conservatives very difficult but the LDs are no fans of Corbyn either. When you are put on the spot you will get it wrong (at least according to some and usually those who shout or tweet the loudest).
Remarkable comments from Vince Cable saying that the Country should coalesce around Phil Hammond, who he considers the only serious politician on Brexit, and condemning Corbyn in no uncertain terms referring to Venezuela economics from him
Interesting circle for him to square if Hammond does become PM, then.
I'd expect off the back of his comment there for him to support him.
In return for one flagship policy: a second referendum.
Mike thought the Lib Dems wouldn't go into a future coalition with any party until they were on 35 MPs plus.
Replaying the events of six weeks ago, if the Conservatives had won 10 fewer seats and Labour 10 more seats, that would have left Lab+SNP+Green+Plaid+Others on 313 and the Cons+DUP on 317 leaving the 12 LD MPs holding the balance (the rest being the Speaker and the 7 absent SF members)
Farron would have had to take a decision - if one side is clearly going to win a majority, "no coalition" is reasonable because it'll never happen. In this scenario, the LDs would have been in a very difficult place.
The point is the MP numbers don't matter - we were in a Coalition with 57 in 2010 and not with 62 in 2005 because one of the two main parties won a majority.
It's also not about joining a Coalition - as the DUP may discover, the price of simply propping up a Government is heavy even if you are only supporting them on C&S.
At some point, the Party will face this decision again - the folk memory of the Coalition will make selling the idea of working with the Conservatives very difficult but the LDs are no fans of Corbyn either. When you are put on the spot you will get it wrong (at least according to some and usually those who shout or tweet the loudest).
Remarkable comments from Vince Cable saying that the Country should coalesce around Phil Hammond, who he considers the only serious politician on Brexit, and condemning Corbyn in no uncertain terms referring to Venezuela economics from him
Interesting circle for him to square if Hammond does become PM, then.
I'd expect off the back of his comment there for him to support him.
Perhaps Vince is laying the groundwork for an alliance of Remain MPs?
Is the cancellation of electrification something that a cross party alliance could vote down and reverse? Or is this a government policy which has no parliamentary scrutiny?
This policy is sound economic sense on the Cardiff to Swansea section. Brand new multi fuel trains are being introduced so that the time from Cardiff to Swansea will be the same even if it is electrified. It is the advancement of technology. Sure some on here can explain the fantastic new generation of train which I believe are being manufactured in the UK
I think you're referring to the Hitachi IEP, and they're a terrible project that will cost passengers dear.
Indeed, in diesel mode the IEPs will have worse performance than the 30 year old HSTs they are replacing. And having to make all the trains bi-mode due to the electrification cock ups will have cost DfT dear.
DfT really screwed the project up in many ways. As one example, allegedly they'll pay out £400,000 to Hitachi for every day the GW trains are not used.
The first, written by childcare expert Malcolm Newsam, is particularly damning. It concludes their actions were either the result of ‘direct political influence’ or ‘the mistaken belief by senior officers that they needed to be seen to be doing their best to protect members of the Labour group from any political embarrassment at a sensitive time’
Comments
Unfortunately, our electrified railways have a very good safety record, so the regulations might be trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
https://twitter.com/aigkenham/status/887186618368442369
Of course, I should of [sic.] said "Fitzwilliam to Wakefield Kirkgate", it's used by certain Bradford services of Grand Central.
How do you have all this at your fingertips?
Hint: i work in the industry, and I don't, and am stunned at how you manage to respond to every question so quickly and accurately.
The Tory Leadership is a fight in which I have no dog, but it's hard for me to imagine a Conference led by a lame one. I'm as aware as anybody of the problems associated with removing her but they won't diminish with time, and delay simply postpones recovery.
The fear of another GE is self-evident, but if it truly is level pegging under the current leadership, why would an election under a new leader not be viewed with some optimism?
https://twitter.com/LibDems/status/888068222561464320
I have lots of time to read as the little 'un gets older, and most months I choose one topic to research in an amateur way. So it might be solar system formation, or the BR Standard locomotives, or my current one: requirements for a Martian inflatable hab. I write copious notes, and search functions are great. As is Google.
Annoyingly, my short-term memory's still not back to what it was.
Edit: and sadly, I'm not always accurate. But I'm always opinionated.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/883708980492734466
Dr Fox isn't negotiating Brexit - he's supposed to be everywhere *except* the EU to get trade deals.
So why would this random guy expect Fox to be on a committee when he's got nothing to do with that remit?
It's the main road out of Steventon towards the A34 and Didcot.
You like them?
"Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going? "
I can't see them signing up to support the Budget without agreeing quite a lot in advance - eg they wouldn't agree to CT rising to 26%.
The alternative would have been permanent recession, unemployment at over three million throughout the 1990s and hundreds of thousands of families having their homes repossessed.
The actual disaster relating to the UK's membership of the ERM was joining it in the first place rather than leaving it.
Although it would have been even better if the government had chosen to leave the ERM of its own will rather than desperately trying to remain in it until forced out.
I think highly possible they wouldn't.
May leads Corbyn as Best PM by 46-38 in today's MORI.
I think she lasts until Brexit is done.
Say we end up agreeing to stick with current standards on toasters, but Liam over in country X wants to offer up reduced toaster standards as a chip to get them to accept something else?
Large hole; small party.... no one ends up satisfied.
1035 ex-Liverpool Street, arrive Shenfield 1118
1139 ex-Shenfield, arrive LST 1225
I like their general look, I like the "walk-through" connections between the carriages (presaged by the Class 378s on Overground, and S Stock on the Tube), and I like the new passenger information displays.
OTOH, while there are a limited number of transverse (2+2) seating, most seating seems to be longitudinal ("Tube style") - I really don't like sitting sideways, especially on long journeys - makes photography awkward
"I'd like to sign a trade treaty with you. No need to talk about it for long because I've got a photocopy of our old EU one and I've already Tippexed out the names.
You'll love the chapter on toasters. Apparently that took ages."
So no, I'm not buying it. He shouldn't be on that committee.
https://www.walkers.co.uk/crisps-range/walkers-crisps/saltnshake
I don't eat crisps very often, but my favourite are Seabrook:
http://www.seabrookcrisps.com/
They put the sachet in because people were stealing the salt cellars in the London pubs where they started out.
The question was what sort of economy would Brown get to play with.
Would you rerun the 92-97 period with continued membership of the ERM at the cost of permanent recession, continuous three million plus unemployed and hundreds of thousands of families having their homes repossessed ?
Would you rather Blair and Brown inherited a strong economy without ERM membership or a ruined economy with ERM membership ?
If the UK government had made exactly the same decisions about interest rates between 90-97 but had kept the policy of shadowing the DM a secret during the period when we were in the ERM, would anything have been different? Perhaps the only difference is that Soros wouldn't be a household name, and the government would have got more credit for dealing with a housing bubble and getting inflation under control.
As they sell 132,000 tons of them a year (*), I guess someone else has been having your share!
I make that just under two kilos of crisps per year, per person. I think.
(*) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/11581694/Soaring-snack-sales-spell-the-death-of-the-crisp.html
He also doesn't seem to know how low the EU's weighted tariffs are compared with some of the examples he gives of countries that have supposedly 'dismantled their trade barriers'. Truly a vacuous charlatan.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2017/07/daniel-hannan-uganda-shows-the-power-of-the-free-market-in-action.html
It may be unlikely but Jacob is getting a cult following (where have we heard that before)
Farron would have had to take a decision - if one side is clearly going to win a majority, "no coalition" is reasonable because it'll never happen. In this scenario, the LDs would have been in a very difficult place.
The point is the MP numbers don't matter - we were in a Coalition with 57 in 2010 and not with 62 in 2005 because one of the two main parties won a majority.
It's also not about joining a Coalition - as the DUP may discover, the price of simply propping up a Government is heavy even if you are only supporting them on C&S.
At some point, the Party will face this decision again - the folk memory of the Coalition will make selling the idea of working with the Conservatives very difficult but the LDs are no fans of Corbyn either. When you are put on the spot you will get it wrong (at least according to some and usually those who shout or tweet the loudest).
https://twitter.com/jenwilliamsmen/status/888111418637025281
I'd expect off the back of his comment there for him to support him.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/taxpayers-facing-400000-day-bill-6692372
The first, written by childcare expert Malcolm Newsam, is particularly damning. It concludes their actions were either the result of ‘direct political influence’ or ‘the mistaken belief by senior officers that they needed to be seen to be doing their best to protect members of the Labour group from any political embarrassment at a sensitive time’