One of the funny things about reading the comments elsewhere on the HS2 review is how some people want it cancelled so that *their* area gets increased funding. Scotland, the north, Wales, the southwest and even the southeast have been proposed as *better* places to spend the money. It's almost as if HS2 is an unlimited pot ...
It also rather ignores that tens of billions are being spent on upgrades and enhancements to the network all over the country in CP6 alone (2019-2024).
I despair of this country. HS2 is going to canned on the back of yet another populist load of misinformation. The money will then remain unborrowed and not one of these other proposals will get it.
We just can't do it can? People new infrastructure. We used to be able to, but now we can't.
Meanwhile in China...
...they have built 25000km of high speed rail lines since 2009. High speed rail is seen as the future of medium-range transport in just about every country in the world outside the US. The UK is way behind - countries such as Morocco and Turkey have more high speed lines than we do.
Yep. Our failure to invest in infrastructure is really depressing. Almost as depressing as the 20 year failure to sort social care out.
One of the funny things about reading the comments elsewhere on the HS2 review is how some people want it cancelled so that *their* area gets increased funding. Scotland, the north, Wales, the southwest and even the southeast have been proposed as *better* places to spend the money. It's almost as if HS2 is an unlimited pot ...
It also rather ignores that tens of billions are being spent on upgrades and enhancements to the network all over the country in CP6 alone (2019-2024).
I despair of this country. HS2 is going to canned on the back of yet another populist load of misinformation. The money will then remain unborrowed and not one of these other proposals will get it.
We just can't do it can? People new infrastructure. We used to be able to, but now we can't.
Meanwhile in China...
...they have built 25000km of high speed rail lines since 2009. High speed rail is seen as the future of medium-range transport in just about every country in the world outside the US. The UK is way behind - countries such as Morocco and Turkey have more high speed lines than we do.
Yep. Our failure to invest in infrastructure is really depressing. Almost as depressing as the 20 year failure to sort social care out.
Why do we keep electing these fools?
Because they bribe us with our money and we seem to like it.
One of the funny things about reading the comments elsewhere on the HS2 review is how some people want it cancelled so that *their* area gets increased funding. Scotland, the north, Wales, the southwest and even the southeast have been proposed as *better* places to spend the money. It's almost as if HS2 is an unlimited pot ...
It also rather ignores that tens of billions are being spent on upgrades and enhancements to the network all over the country in CP6 alone (2019-2024).
I despair of this country. HS2 is going to canned on the back of yet another populist load of misinformation. The money will then remain unborrowed and not one of these other proposals will get it.
We just can't do it can? People new infrastructure. We used to be able to, but now we can't.
Meanwhile in China...
...they have built 25000km of high speed rail lines since 2009. High speed rail is seen as the future of medium-range transport in just about every country in the world outside the US. The UK is way behind - countries such as Morocco and Turkey have more high speed lines than we do.
I honestly thought Brexit-fatigue would benefit the Remain camp. I thought the longer it went on the more people would say 'bugger it, let's stay'. It does appear more people are inclined to say 'bugger it, let's have it over and done with and get out'.
I certainly see more of the latter in my work-related meetings. Most people just want the whole sorry saga over with.
Absolutely and that includes a fair few remainer voters. The problem with revoke/remain is that it does not end the saga. It will just intensify it and immediately provoke a furious campaign to leave. Still, it would make the Euro-elections 2026 something to look forward to.
One of the funny things about reading the comments elsewhere on the HS2 review is how some people want it cancelled so that *their* area gets increased funding. Scotland, the north, Wales, the southwest and even the southeast have been proposed as *better* places to spend the money. It's almost as if HS2 is an unlimited pot ...
It also rather ignores that tens of billions are being spent on upgrades and enhancements to the network all over the country in CP6 alone (2019-2024).
I despair of this country. HS2 is going to canned on the back of yet another populist load of misinformation. The money will then remain unborrowed and not one of these other proposals will get it.
We just can't do it can? People new infrastructure. We used to be able to, but now we can't.
Meanwhile in China...
...they have built 25000km of high speed rail lines since 2009. High speed rail is seen as the future of medium-range transport in just about every country in the world outside the US. The UK is way behind - countries such as Morocco and Turkey have more high speed lines than we do.
Biden's sticking power in those polls is remarkable. I get that as ex-VP he has more recognition, but all the gaffes must start to hit *some time*, shurely?
One of the funny things about reading the comments elsewhere on the HS2 review is how some people want it cancelled so that *their* area gets increased funding. Scotland, the north, Wales, the southwest and even the southeast have been proposed as *better* places to spend the money. It's almost as if HS2 is an unlimited pot ...
It also rather ignores that tens of billions are being spent on upgrades and enhancements to the network all over the country in CP6 alone (2019-2024).
I despair of this country. HS2 is going to canned on the back of yet another populist load of misinformation. The money will then remain unborrowed and not one of these other proposals will get it.
We just can't do it can? People new infrastructure. We used to be able to, but now we can't.
Meanwhile in China...
...they have built 25000km of high speed rail lines since 2009. High speed rail is seen as the future of medium-range transport in just about every country in the world outside the US. The UK is way behind - countries such as Morocco and Turkey have more high speed lines than we do.
Yep. Our failure to invest in infrastructure is really depressing. Almost as depressing as the 20 year failure to sort social care out.
Why do we keep electing these fools?
because our party system is largely broken - membership is now dominated by what used to be the lunatic fringe, and thanks to genuine stupidity of the leadership of the Tories and Labour they thought it would be "democratic" if said loonies are able to directly elect leaders, and by extension PMs. It is like allowing delinquent children decide the head teacher in a failing school
One of the funny things about reading the comments elsewhere on the HS2 review is how some people want it cancelled so that *their* area gets increased funding. Scotland, the north, Wales, the southwest and even the southeast have been proposed as *better* places to spend the money. It's almost as if HS2 is an unlimited pot ...
It also rather ignores that tens of billions are being spent on upgrades and enhancements to the network all over the country in CP6 alone (2019-2024).
I despair of this country. HS2 is going to canned on the back of yet another populist load of misinformation. The money will then remain unborrowed and not one of these other proposals will get it.
We just can't do it can? People new infrastructure. We used to be able to, but now we can't.
Meanwhile in China...
...they have built 25000km of high speed rail lines since 2009. High speed rail is seen as the future of medium-range transport in just about every country in the world outside the US. The UK is way behind - countries such as Morocco and Turkey have more high speed lines than we do.
One of the funny things about reading the comments elsewhere on the HS2 review is how some people want it cancelled so that *their* area gets increased funding. Scotland, the north, Wales, the southwest and even the southeast have been proposed as *better* places to spend the money. It's almost as if HS2 is an unlimited pot ...
It also rather ignores that tens of billions are being spent on upgrades and enhancements to the network all over the country in CP6 alone (2019-2024).
I despair of this country. HS2 is going to canned on the back of yet another populist load of misinformation. The money will then remain unborrowed and not one of these other proposals will get it.
We just can't do it can? People new infrastructure. We used to be able to, but now we can't.
Meanwhile in China...
...they have built 25000km of high speed rail lines since 2009. High speed rail is seen as the future of medium-range transport in just about every country in the world outside the US. The UK is way behind - countries such as Morocco and Turkey have more high speed lines than we do.
Yep. Our failure to invest in infrastructure is really depressing. Almost as depressing as the 20 year failure to sort social care out.
Why do we keep electing these fools?
because our party system is largely broken - membership is now dominated by what used to be the lunatic fringe, and thanks to genuine stupidity of the leadership of the Tories and Labour they thought it would be "democratic" if said loonies are able to directly elect leaders, and by extension PMs. It is like allowing delinquent children decide the head teacher in a failing school
Yep.
A fundamental problem is not enough people join political parties, which seem increasingly to be filled with zealous fanatics. Look at Con Party. It had 2 million members or something like that in 1950s.
One of the funny things about reading the comments elsewhere on the HS2 review is how some people want it cancelled so that *their* area gets increased funding. Scotland, the north, Wales, the southwest and even the southeast have been proposed as *better* places to spend the money. It's almost as if HS2 is an unlimited pot ...
It also rather ignores that tens of billions are being spent on upgrades and enhancements to the network all over the country in CP6 alone (2019-2024).
I despair of this country. HS2 is going to canned on the back of yet another populist load of misinformation. The money will then remain unborrowed and not one of these other proposals will get it.
We just can't do it can? People new infrastructure. We used to be able to, but now we can't.
Meanwhile in China...
...they have built 25000km of high speed rail lines since 2009. High speed rail is seen as the future of medium-range transport in just about every country in the world outside the US. The UK is way behind - countries such as Morocco and Turkey have more high speed lines than we do.
I honestly thought Brexit-fatigue would benefit the Remain camp. I thought the longer it went on the more people would say 'bugger it, let's stay'. It does appear more people are inclined to say 'bugger it, let's have it over and done with and get out'.
I certainly see more of the latter in my work-related meetings. Most people just want the whole sorry saga over with.
Absolutely and that includes a fair few remainer voters. The problem with revoke/remain is that it does not end the saga. It will just intensify it and immediately provoke a furious campaign to leave. Still, it would make the Euro-elections 2026 something to look forward to.
The problem with No Deal is that it does not end the saga. It will just intensify it and immediately provoke a furious campaign to rejoin or beg for a deal which doesn't tank the economy, despite the need for regulatory alignment and possibly free movement/ECJ involvement.
I guess the point I'm making is that an outcome on either extreme which doesn't leave most people shrugging "'s OK, I suppose" will mean this goes on. No Dealers should be careful what they wish for.
One of the funny things about reading the comments elsewhere on the HS2 review is how some people want it cancelled so that *their* area gets increased funding. Scotland, the north, Wales, the southwest and even the southeast have been proposed as *better* places to spend the money. It's almost as if HS2 is an unlimited pot ...
It also rather ignores that tens of billions are being spent on upgrades and enhancements to the network all over the country in CP6 alone (2019-2024).
I despair of this country. HS2 is going to canned on the back of yet another populist load of misinformation. The money will then remain unborrowed and not one of these other proposals will get it.
We just can't do it can? People new infrastructure. We used to be able to, but now we can't.
Meanwhile in China...
...they have built 25000km of high speed rail lines since 2009. High speed rail is seen as the future of medium-range transport in just about every country in the world outside the US. The UK is way behind - countries such as Morocco and Turkey have more high speed lines than we do.
Yep. Our failure to invest in infrastructure is really depressing. Almost as depressing as the 20 year failure to sort social care out.
Why do we keep electing these fools?
because our party system is largely broken - membership is now dominated by what used to be the lunatic fringe, and thanks to genuine stupidity of the leadership of the Tories and Labour they thought it would be "democratic" if said loonies are able to directly elect leaders, and by extension PMs. It is like allowing delinquent children decide the head teacher in a failing school
Yep.
A fundamental problem is not enough people join political parties, which seem increasingly to be filled with zealous fanatics. Look at Con Party. It had 2 million members or something like that in 1950s.
and to exacerbate said problem, their remaining putrid membership of fuckwits, swiveleyed lunatics and sociopaths hardly makes it a group that "normal" balanced people want to spend their weekends with!
Biden's sticking power in those polls is remarkable. I get that as ex-VP he has more recognition, but all the gaffes must start to hit *some time*, shurely?
It's all about the "Bunnies for Biden" SuperPac.
Warren's "+2" points towards well possible defeat here for me. I've backed her in the nomination and laid her out in the presidency markets.
One of the funny things about reading the comments elsewhere on the HS2 review is how some people want it cancelled so that *their* area gets increased funding. Scotland, the north, Wales, the southwest and even the southeast have been proposed as *better* places to spend the money. It's almost as if HS2 is an unlimited pot ...
It also rather ignores that tens of billions are being spent on upgrades and enhancements to the network all over the country in CP6 alone (2019-2024).
I despair of this country. HS2 is going to canned on the back of yet another populist load of misinformation. The money will then remain unborrowed and not one of these other proposals will get it.
We just can't do it can? People new infrastructure. We used to be able to, but now we can't.
Meanwhile in China...
...they have built 25000km of high speed rail lines since 2009. High speed rail is seen as the future of medium-range transport in just about every country in the world outside the US. The UK is way behind - countries such as Morocco and Turkey have more high speed lines than we do.
Ankara-Istanbul (250km/h) and Casablanca-Tangier (320km/h) are both longer than HS1 and both operational, though Ankara-Istanbul is not quite complete in that trains cannot run at high speed over the final section. Both these are faster than WCML which is 200km/h.
I honestly thought Brexit-fatigue would benefit the Remain camp. I thought the longer it went on the more people would say 'bugger it, let's stay'. It does appear more people are inclined to say 'bugger it, let's have it over and done with and get out'.
I certainly see more of the latter in my work-related meetings. Most people just want the whole sorry saga over with.
Absolutely and that includes a fair few remainer voters. The problem with revoke/remain is that it does not end the saga. It will just intensify it and immediately provoke a furious campaign to leave. Still, it would make the Euro-elections 2026 something to look forward to.
The problem with No Deal is that it does not end the saga. It will just intensify it and immediately provoke a furious campaign to rejoin or beg for a deal which doesn't tank the economy, despite the need for regulatory alignment and possibly free movement/ECJ involvement.
I guess the point I'm making is that an outcome on either extreme which doesn't leave most people shrugging "'s OK, I suppose" will mean this goes on. No Dealers should be careful what they wish for.
No deal really isn't a position. It is a starting point from which various things might or might not flow. if you are an optimist then you think that the UK outside the EU has a better position than when we are bound by EU treaties etc. If you are a pessimist you mutter phrases like "third party country" and stare meaningfully.
Personally, I'd prefer a deal so we can talk about something else for a change. The traffic flow stuff was interesting and there is another test starting tomorrow. I really wish those overpaid idiots who claim to represent us would just get on with it.
On the Kantar poll it does seem an outlier but since Boris was elected there has only been 1 poll with a labour lead and that at only 1%
Furthermore from media interviews with the public there does seem to be a view to get it finished and Boris optimism contrasts sharply with labour's misery and all doom and gloom
As I have commented a couple of times recently this forum is at times aggressive, intolerant, and nasty coming from both sides and for those of us who voted remain but want to leave because of democracy we despair.
I think Boris is following a strategy of being reasonable with the EU, publishing his correspondence, and generally his expectations of a deal are very much a part of showing the EU as the bad guys and it may just be working.
However, it is clear that he either hopes the HOC prevents a no deal or he is gambling on a last minute deal when the clock ticks towards 11.00pm on the 31st October.
If we arrive a day or two before deadlocked, I expect him to seek an extension and that will be the biggest danger to his poll ratings and premiership
One of the funny things about reading the comments elsewhere on the HS2 review is how some people want it cancelled so that *their* area gets increased funding. Scotland, the north, Wales, the southwest and even the southeast have been proposed as *better* places to spend the money. It's almost as if HS2 is an unlimited pot ...
It also rather ignores that tens of billions are being spent on upgrades and enhancements to the network all over the country in CP6 alone (2019-2024).
I despair of this country. HS2 is going to canned on the back of yet another populist load of misinformation. The money will then remain unborrowed and not one of these other proposals will get it.
We just can't do it can? People new infrastructure. We used to be able to, but now we can't.
Meanwhile in China...
...they have built 25000km of high speed rail lines since 2009. High speed rail is seen as the future of medium-range transport in just about every country in the world outside the US. The UK is way behind - countries such as Morocco and Turkey have more high speed lines than we do.
Ankara-Istanbul (250km/h) and Casablanca-Tangier (320km/h) are both longer than HS1 and both operational, though Ankara-Istanbul is not quite complete in that trains cannot run at high speed over the final section. Both these are faster than WCML which is 200km/h.
Our infrastructure development has become a sad joke. Other places screw up too (See Berlin airport) but we've got a Crossrail delayed, HS2 and LHR3 on hold now. They are great news if able to get in as a consultant, lawyer, subcontractor or accountant on the job.
Some quick thoughts on the HS2 review. According to the BBC (1), the review will look into:
*) cost estimates so far *) opportunities for efficiency savings *) the environmental impact, focusing specifically on net zero carbon commitment *) whether the economic and business case made for HS2 is accurate *) the added costs of cancelling the project or changing its scope, such as combining phases 1 and 2a (Birmingham to Crewe), reducing the speed or building only phase 1
This seems to me as though they've decided on the answers to some fairly important questions before the review has even started. How would I structure the review?
1) look at the basic need for HS2. Back in the late 2000s when the project was first mooted, traffic predictions for the WCML and associated railways were made. How have these stood up since then? Are the traffic levels less than, more than, or the same as predicted? How have competing modes of transport (coaches, cars, planes) altered over that period over similar routes?
2) If traffic levels are the same as, or greater than, predicted, is there still a projected capacity crunch to the south of Birmingham on the WCML?
3) Try to get firm up-to-date costs for the HS2 project, and highlight projected risks - especially with the experience of Crossrail and the Great Western electrification debacles.
4) look at the Atkins report (2) into the alternatives to HS2. If 2) show there is still going to be a need for capacity on the WCML, do any of the rejected alternatives now look better value?
5) What are the costs of *not* doing it? How will reduced paths for trains on the WCML affect the usage of trains and alternatives (coaches, cars, planes etc), and how will ticket prices increase? Will local services be denuded by the need to increase paths for high-speed non-stop services?
6) How much would cancelling HS2 affect the business case for HS3/Northern Powerhouse Rail? How much would it affect (negatively or positively) other planned and proposed network enhancements?
7) Given all of the above, if HS2 is cancelled or descoped, what do we do instead?
8) How will any large alterations to the scheme proposed by this review affect delivery timescales and costs? How much do they address existing complaints about the project, and what future complaints might they cause?
These questions seem to me to be at the heart of the HS2 question. A review that does not answer them will be rather incomplete.
It shows that they are big and tough and not afraid of no deal. And it gets all our remainers excited again about the forthcoming calamity. Which is nice.
The joy of a quintessentially unelected EU Commissioner criticizing an “unelected” prime minister... who was elected by 150,000 Tory members AND the good constituents of Uxbridge.
It’s like a cow criticizing a fat lady for being “bovine”
Parliament will be able to get rid of Johnson in 11 days time should it choose.
How can EU commissioners be got rid of?
There has been provision for a vote of no confidence against the Commission ever since the Treaty of Rome. Today, general provisions of the Parliament’s right to vote on a motion of censure of the Commission are included in Article 17(8) TEU and in Article 234 TFEU. Such a motion requires a two-thirds majority of the votes cast, representing a majority of Parliament’s component members. A successful vote on a motion of censure leads to the resignation of the Commission as a body, including the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy with regard to his/her duties carried out in the Commission.
Parliament will be able to get rid of Johnson in 11 days time should it choose.
How can EU commissioners be got rid of?
There has been provision for a vote of no confidence against the Commission ever since the Treaty of Rome. Today, general provisions of the Parliament’s right to vote on a motion of censure of the Commission are included in Article 17(8) TEU and in Article 234 TFEU. Such a motion requires a two-thirds majority of the votes cast, representing a majority of Parliament’s component members. A successful vote on a motion of censure leads to the resignation of the Commission as a body, including the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy with regard to his/her duties carried out in the Commission.
Not even a simple majority? A very high bar indeed.
It shows that they are big and tough and not afraid of no deal. And it gets all our remainers excited again about the forthcoming calamity. Which is nice.
Parliament will be able to get rid of Johnson in 11 days time should it choose.
How can EU commissioners be got rid of?
The European Parliament can get rid of them by a vote of confidence, so pretty much the same way.
Not quite The only ways for a member of the Commission to lose their post before the end of the Commission’s five-year term are (according to TFEU, article 246) if they die, resign, or are compulsorily retired. The President of the Commission can force any member to resign, and the European Parliament can force the whole Commission to resign by a vote of no confidence. Compulsory retirement happens when the Court of Justice decides (on application by the Commission or the Council) that a member of the Commission is either unfit for office or is guilty of “serious misconduct”.
So the EU Parliament still cannot remove a single commissioner if he is deemed incompetent, dishonest etc.
That is seriously worrying. We know Trump loves those who flatter him. There is a significant section of the Evangelical base who consider Trump to be the literal fulfilment of prophecy signifying the final battle of the End Times leading to the Second Coming and Judgment Day. He seems to be buying into this. And I am quite serious here.
He's closing the Fed Reserve before he launches that Last Battle though.
Some quick thoughts on the HS2 review. According to the BBC (1), the review will look into:
*) cost estimates so far *) opportunities for efficiency savings *) the environmental impact, focusing specifically on net zero carbon commitment *) whether the economic and business case made for HS2 is accurate *) the added costs of cancelling the project or changing its scope, such as combining phases 1 and 2a (Birmingham to Crewe), reducing the speed or building only phase 1
This seems to me as though they've decided on the answers to some fairly important questions before the review has even started. How would I structure the review?
1) look at the basic need for HS2. Back in the late 2000s when the project was first mooted, traffic predictions for the WCML and associated railways were made. How have these stood up since then? Are the traffic levels less than, more than, or the same as predicted? How have competing modes of transport (coaches, cars, planes) altered over that period over similar routes?
2) If traffic levels are the same as, or greater than, predicted, is there still a projected capacity crunch to the south of Birmingham on the WCML?
3) Try to get firm up-to-date costs for the HS2 project, and highlight projected risks - especially with the experience of Crossrail and the Great Western electrification debacles.
4) look at the Atkins report (2) into the alternatives to HS2. If 2) show there is still going to be a need for capacity on the WCML, do any of the rejected alternatives now look better value?
6) How much would cancelling HS2 affect the business case for HS3/Northern Powerhouse Rail? How much would it affect (negatively or positively) other planned and proposed network enhancements?
7) Given all of the above, if HS2 is cancelled or descoped, what do we do instead?
8) How will any large alterations to the scheme proposed by this review affect delivery timescales and costs? How much do they address existing complaints about the project, and what future complaints might they cause?
These questions seem to me to be at the heart of the HS2 question. A review that does not answer them will be rather incomplete.
I don’t think Boris is gonna cancel. He’s just doing the right thing and putting some critics of high speed rail on the review board, along with lots of enthusiasts. What kind of review would it be if it was only written by HS2 fanboys?
My hunch: they will seek very significant savings. Stop at Old Oak. Stop at Crewe. Etc
Parliament will be able to get rid of Johnson in 11 days time should it choose.
How can EU commissioners be got rid of?
There has been provision for a vote of no confidence against the Commission ever since the Treaty of Rome. Today, general provisions of the Parliament’s right to vote on a motion of censure of the Commission are included in Article 17(8) TEU and in Article 234 TFEU. Such a motion requires a two-thirds majority of the votes cast, representing a majority of Parliament’s component members. A successful vote on a motion of censure leads to the resignation of the Commission as a body, including the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy with regard to his/her duties carried out in the Commission.
Not even a simple majority? A very high bar indeed.
The question was asked, I gave an answer. Two thirds is also the majority required in the US Senate to remove a President on impeachment.
It does seem there's more focus on mudslinging and trying to affix blame than find a solution.
The media's right to point out the PM's daftness, but seem curiously disinterested in the perversity of the EU refusing to acknowledge their withdrawal agreement cannot pass the Commons, and wanting the PM to come up with a backstop alternative whilst simultaneously promising to renegotiate nothing and reject whatever he says.
It does seem there's more focus on mudslinging and trying to affix blame than find a solution.
The media's right to point out the PM's daftness, but seem curiously disinterested in the perversity of the EU refusing to acknowledge their withdrawal agreement cannot pass the Commons, and wanting the PM to come up with a backstop alternative whilst simultaneously promising to renegotiate nothing and reject whatever he says.
That is seriously worrying. We know Trump loves those who flatter him. There is a significant section of the Evangelical base who consider Trump to be the literal fulfilment of prophecy signifying the final battle of the End Times leading to the Second Coming and Judgment Day. He seems to be buying into this. And I am quite serious here.
He's closing the Fed Reserve before he launches that Last Battle though.
And I am not sure what he has to complain about. The Fed cut interest rates late in the cycle despite a dangerously loose monetary policy, they stopped clawing back QE and they seem fairly thoroughly cowed by Trump. Clearly Trump thinks that if a recession comes before an election he needs someone to blame and its not going to be him.
I'm puzzled by the disparity between the Tories' 42% and the derisory 23% who favour No Deal, especially since No Deal appears to be the outcome Boris and his government are championing with relish. Might it be that Boris is still on probation, and people simply regard his No Deal rhetoric as an acceptable ruse to secure a deal? Dangerous if so - there are a lot of people out there being groomed for disappointment and, dare I say it, a sense of betrayal.
People often simply project what they want onto the party or leader that takes their fancy. Look how many people think Corbyn is playing a very clever remain game. The people who thought May was Mrs Thatcher were even wider of the mark.
That is seriously worrying. We know Trump loves those who flatter him. There is a significant section of the Evangelical base who consider Trump to be the literal fulfilment of prophecy signifying the final battle of the End Times leading to the Second Coming and Judgment Day. He seems to be buying into this. And I am quite serious here.
Wonder what the evangelicals will make of this. They seemed to get upset when he started using "goddamn" at his rallies.
It does seem there's more focus on mudslinging and trying to affix blame than find a solution.
The media's right to point out the PM's daftness, but seem curiously disinterested in the perversity of the EU refusing to acknowledge their withdrawal agreement cannot pass the Commons, and wanting the PM to come up with a backstop alternative whilst simultaneously promising to renegotiate nothing and reject whatever he says.
No Deal will be an enormous failure of statecraft on both sides, should it happen. Lots of Leavers will get the blame, and rightly, but Barnier, Juncker, Verhoefstadt et al will be publicly shamed, as well. Once they have all been pelted with rotten turnips, attention will turn to earlier culprits, like Cameron. And the madder europhiles.
It will be like the moral aftermath of the Iraq War.
Biden's sticking power in those polls is remarkable. I get that as ex-VP he has more recognition, but all the gaffes must start to hit *some time*, shurely?
Well at the moment only those interested in politics are paying any attention, because it six months before the primaries and lots of voters are not even interested in the primaries when they come along. If you're not paying attention, then you don't realise he's starting to loose it.
It does seem there's more focus on mudslinging and trying to affix blame than find a solution.
The media's right to point out the PM's daftness, but seem curiously disinterested in the perversity of the EU refusing to acknowledge their withdrawal agreement cannot pass the Commons, and wanting the PM to come up with a backstop alternative whilst simultaneously promising to renegotiate nothing and reject whatever he says.
No Deal will be an enormous failure of statecraft on both sides, should it happen. Lots of Leavers will get the blame, and rightly, but Barnier, Juncker, Verhoefstadt et al will be publicly shamed, as well. Once they have all been pelted with rotten turnips, attention will turn to earlier culprits, like Cameron. And the madder europhiles.
It will be like the moral aftermath of the Iraq War.
Who said this and when?
The tragedy for British politics - for Britain - has been that politicians of both parties have consistently failed, not just in the 1950s but on up to the present day, to appreciate the emerging reality of European integration. And in doing so, they have failed Britain's interests.
It does seem there's more focus on mudslinging and trying to affix blame than find a solution.
The media's right to point out the PM's daftness, but seem curiously disinterested in the perversity of the EU refusing to acknowledge their withdrawal agreement cannot pass the Commons, and wanting the PM to come up with a backstop alternative whilst simultaneously promising to renegotiate nothing and reject whatever he says.
No Deal will be an enormous failure of statecraft on both sides, should it happen. Lots of Leavers will get the blame, and rightly, but Barnier, Juncker, Verhoefstadt et al will be publicly shamed, as well. Once they have all been pelted with rotten turnips, attention will turn to earlier culprits, like Cameron. And the madder europhiles.
It will be like the moral aftermath of the Iraq War.
Who said this and when?
The tragedy for British politics - for Britain - has been that politicians of both parties have consistently failed, not just in the 1950s but on up to the present day, to appreciate the emerging reality of European integration. And in doing so, they have failed Britain's interests.
It does seem there's more focus on mudslinging and trying to affix blame than find a solution.
The media's right to point out the PM's daftness, but seem curiously disinterested in the perversity of the EU refusing to acknowledge their withdrawal agreement cannot pass the Commons, and wanting the PM to come up with a backstop alternative whilst simultaneously promising to renegotiate nothing and reject whatever he says.
No Deal will be an enormous failure of statecraft on both sides, should it happen. Lots of Leavers will get the blame, and rightly, but Barnier, Juncker, Verhoefstadt et al will be publicly shamed, as well. Once they have all been pelted with rotten turnips, attention will turn to earlier culprits, like Cameron. And the madder europhiles.
It will be like the moral aftermath of the Iraq War.
Who said this and when?
The tragedy for British politics - for Britain - has been that politicians of both parties have consistently failed, not just in the 1950s but on up to the present day, to appreciate the emerging reality of European integration. And in doing so, they have failed Britain's interests.
I have no idea but given that you’re trying to be provocative, my guess is either Boris or Thatcher ?
I don’t think Boris is gonna cancel. He’s just doing the right thing and putting some critics of high speed rail on the review board, along with lots of enthusiasts. What kind of review would it be if it was only written by HS2 fanboys?
My hunch: they will seek very significant savings. Stop at Old Oak. Stop at Crewe. Etc
A classic bit of British fudge.
I'd say this is a pretty clear clue that an early election is at least being contemplated. Having this kicked into the long grass for a few months avoids this distraction during an election campaign.
I don’t think Boris is gonna cancel. He’s just doing the right thing and putting some critics of high speed rail on the review board, along with lots of enthusiasts. What kind of review would it be if it was only written by HS2 fanboys?
My hunch: they will seek very significant savings. Stop at Old Oak. Stop at Crewe. Etc
A classic bit of British fudge.
Stopping it at OOC is tantamount to scrapping the whole thing. It'll reduce the cost a lot, but also massively decrease the scheme's benefits. I'd also be concerned about how it would effect Crossrail usage - AIUI Crossrail is being designed to be at full capacity path-wise from the start of operations, (*) so there would be no space for extra trains to carry all the people off HS2. Basically, you might just end up moving the capacity constraint onto Crossrail.
Stopping it at Crewe also adjusts the CBR equation, and means any hope of a connected high-speed network to benefit the north goes out of the window.
(*) It'd be interesting to consider if this decision was a mistake - and if it was, whether HS2 could learn from it.
It does seem there's more focus on mudslinging and trying to affix blame than find a solution.
The media's right to point out the PM's daftness, but seem curiously disinterested in the perversity of the EU refusing to acknowledge their withdrawal agreement cannot pass the Commons, and wanting the PM to come up with a backstop alternative whilst simultaneously promising to renegotiate nothing and reject whatever he says.
No Deal will be an enormous failure of statecraft on both sides, should it happen. Lots of Leavers will get the blame, and rightly, but Barnier, Juncker, Verhoefstadt et al will be publicly shamed, as well. Once they have all been pelted with rotten turnips, attention will turn to earlier culprits, like Cameron. And the madder europhiles.
It will be like the moral aftermath of the Iraq War.
Who said this and when?
The tragedy for British politics - for Britain - has been that politicians of both parties have consistently failed, not just in the 1950s but on up to the present day, to appreciate the emerging reality of European integration. And in doing so, they have failed Britain's interests.
I have no idea but given that you’re trying to be provocative, my guess is either Boris or Thatcher ?
Look at the bollox from GERS, you would have thought they might have tried to make the numbers look like someone might believe them. As subtle as a brick Scotland deficit 🏴 - £12.6bn Wales deficit - £13.7bn N.I deficit - circa £9bn
Celtic total - £34.8bn UK deficit 🇬🇧 - £23.5bn
So England has a surplus of about £11bn & Scotland is creating 53% of UK deficit from 8-9% of population.
It does seem there's more focus on mudslinging and trying to affix blame than find a solution.
The media's right to point out the PM's daftness, but seem curiously disinterested in the perversity of the EU refusing to acknowledge their withdrawal agreement cannot pass the Commons, and wanting the PM to come up with a backstop alternative whilst simultaneously promising to renegotiate nothing and reject whatever he says.
No Deal will be an enormous failure of statecraft on both sides, should it happen. Lots of Leavers will get the blame, and rightly, but Barnier, Juncker, Verhoefstadt et al will be publicly shamed, as well. Once they have all been pelted with rotten turnips, attention will turn to earlier culprits, like Cameron. And the madder europhiles.
It will be like the moral aftermath of the Iraq War.
Who said this and when?
The tragedy for British politics - for Britain - has been that politicians of both parties have consistently failed, not just in the 1950s but on up to the present day, to appreciate the emerging reality of European integration. And in doing so, they have failed Britain's interests.
Tony Blair and his "Britain at the heart of Europe" nonsense. That went well...
It does seem there's more focus on mudslinging and trying to affix blame than find a solution.
The media's right to point out the PM's daftness, but seem curiously disinterested in the perversity of the EU refusing to acknowledge their withdrawal agreement cannot pass the Commons, and wanting the PM to come up with a backstop alternative whilst simultaneously promising to renegotiate nothing and reject whatever he says.
No Deal will be an enormous failure of statecraft on both sides, should it happen. Lots of Leavers will get the blame, and rightly, but Barnier, Juncker, Verhoefstadt et al will be publicly shamed, as well. Once they have all been pelted with rotten turnips, attention will turn to earlier culprits, like Cameron. And the madder europhiles.
It will be like the moral aftermath of the Iraq War.
Who said this and when?
The tragedy for British politics - for Britain - has been that politicians of both parties have consistently failed, not just in the 1950s but on up to the present day, to appreciate the emerging reality of European integration. And in doing so, they have failed Britain's interests.
Tony Blair and his "Britain at the heart of Europe" nonsense. That went well...
It was John Major who said he wanted to put Britain at the heart of Europe (though I am sure Blair agreed with him).
Despite the good poll today, I think Boris has blown his chances in an early election by allowing his bluff to be called by the EU in advance. Now the HYUFD "Deal or No Deal" prospectus becomes simply "No Deal", which is going to be a much harder sell, and will lead to the party fracturing.
That's very interesting. Whether to prompt for the Brexit Party is an obvious question (and it's pretty odd if they don't ). The past vote thing is more subtle. If 30% voted X in 2017 but a random sample produces 40% who say they voted X, should we reduce the rating of X by a quarter? If only 20% "admit" they voted X, should we increase X's rating by half? YouGov implicitly disbelieves them, most of the other don't. But the motivations of false recall are complex - embarrassment, attempts to mislead the pollsters, simple forgetfulness - and not all of them point in the same direction (e.g. if you don't like to admit voting X but did so, you may do the same again). The real probable votes are probably somewhere in between the estimates.
It's clear that the Tories are ahead at the moment, but I doubt if Kantar ("forget the Brexit Party and tweak for false recall") is right. We could do with some second preference/willingness to vote tactically surveys too.
It does seem there's more focus on mudslinging and trying to affix blame than find a solution.
The media's right to point out the PM's daftness, but seem curiously disinterested in the perversity of the EU refusing to acknowledge their withdrawal agreement cannot pass the Commons, and wanting the PM to come up with a backstop alternative whilst simultaneously promising to renegotiate nothing and reject whatever he says.
No Deal will be an enormous failure of statecraft on both sides, should it happen. Lots of Leavers will get the blame, and rightly, but Barnier, Juncker, Verhoefstadt et al will be publicly shamed, as well. Once they have all been pelted with rotten turnips, attention will turn to earlier culprits, like Cameron. And the madder europhiles.
It will be like the moral aftermath of the Iraq War.
Who said this and when?
The tragedy for British politics - for Britain - has been that politicians of both parties have consistently failed, not just in the 1950s but on up to the present day, to appreciate the emerging reality of European integration. And in doing so, they have failed Britain's interests.
I have no idea but given that you’re trying to be provocative, my guess is either Boris or Thatcher ?
Blair was the man who promised and then denied us a referendum on the EU constitution. A despicable decision which led directly if belatedly to Brexit. What a horrible man.
When the post No Deal Lynchings begin, I want to see Blair hanging (metaphorically) from the (allegorical) tree. Perhaps he should be first.
It does seem there's more focus on mudslinging and trying to affix blame than find a solution.
The media's right to point out the PM's daftness, but seem curiously disinterested in the perversity of the EU refusing to acknowledge their withdrawal agreement cannot pass the Commons, and wanting the PM to come up with a backstop alternative whilst simultaneously promising to renegotiate nothing and reject whatever he says.
No Deal will be an enormous failure of statecraft on both sides, should it happen. Lots of Leavers will get the blame, and rightly, but Barnier, Juncker, Verhoefstadt et al will be publicly shamed, as well. Once they have all been pelted with rotten turnips, attention will turn to earlier culprits, like Cameron. And the madder europhiles.
It will be like the moral aftermath of the Iraq War.
Who said this and when?
The tragedy for British politics - for Britain - has been that politicians of both parties have consistently failed, not just in the 1950s but on up to the present day, to appreciate the emerging reality of European integration. And in doing so, they have failed Britain's interests.
Tony Blair and his "Britain at the heart of Europe" nonsense. That went well...
Some quick thoughts on the HS2 review. According to the BBC (1), the review will look into:
*) cost estimates so far *) opportunities for efficiency savings *) the environmental impact, focusing specifically on net zero carbon commitment *) whether the economic and business case made for HS2 is accurate *) the added costs of cancelling the project or changing its scope, such as combining phases 1 and 2a (Birmingham to Crewe), reducing the speed or building only phase 1
This seems to me as though they've decided on the answers to some fairly important questions before the review has even started. How would I structure the review?
I don’t think Boris is gonna cancel. He’s just doing the right thing and putting some critics of high speed rail on the review board, along with lots of enthusiasts. What kind of review would it be if it was only written by HS2 fanboys?
My hunch: they will seek very significant savings. Stop at Old Oak. Stop at Crewe. Etc
A classic bit of British fudge.
London to Brum to provide additional capacity where it is needed. Reduced maximum speed to save some cash. Nothing further north, since that is a vanity project. Divert the money to HS3.
Some quick thoughts on the HS2 review. According to the BBC (1), the review will look into:
*) cost estimates so far *) opportunities for efficiency savings *) the environmental impact, focusing specifically on net zero carbon commitment *) whether the economic and business case made for HS2 is accurate *) the added costs of cancelling the project or changing its scope, such as combining phases 1 and 2a (Birmingham to Crewe), reducing the speed or building only phase 1
This seems to me as though they've decided on the answers to some fairly important questions before the review has even started. How would I structure the review?
I don’t think Boris is gonna cancel. He’s just doing the right thing and putting some critics of high speed rail on the review board, along with lots of enthusiasts. What kind of review would it be if it was only written by HS2 fanboys?
My hunch: they will seek very significant savings. Stop at Old Oak. Stop at Crewe. Etc
A classic bit of British fudge.
London to Brum to provide additional capacity where it is needed. Reduced maximum speed to save some cash. Nothing further north, since that is a vanity project. Divert the money to HS3.
That's what I reckon, anyway.
How do you build H3 without Crewe to Manc part of HS2?
ON topic, I had breakfast next to comedian Paul Whitehouse this morning (in a Thessaloniki hotel). He was telling his little daughter the history of Turkey under Kemal Ataturk (a son of the town). His daughter must be about seven years old so she just stared at him in total bewilderment.
It was like a comic sketch from The Fast Show, in which he starred, “Over-informative dad”. I couldn’t work out if he was doing it to amuse himself or this is just how he interacts with his kids. Fascinating to watch.
Look at the bollox from GERS, you would have thought they might have tried to make the numbers look like someone might believe them. As subtle as a brick Scotland deficit 🏴 - £12.6bn Wales deficit - £13.7bn N.I deficit - circa £9bn
Celtic total - £34.8bn UK deficit 🇬🇧 - £23.5bn
So England has a surplus of about £11bn & Scotland is creating 53% of UK deficit from 8-9% of population.
Why do you find that surprising Malcolm? Our private sector is in a parlous state and many of our financial companies moved south when threatened by Indyref 1. If you look at the FTSE 100 I think you will find SSE, Firstgroup, HBOS and Cairn Energy. I may have missed one but I think that's it.
Now you can make the case that some of these companies make quite a lot of their money in Scotland but have their registered offices in England. But the Scottish tax base is a real problem, not a fiction of the ONS.
Public expenditure in Scotland is significantly higher per head than in England. You can again argue that there are reasons for that but the numbers are indisputable.
As I said earlier today Scotland really needs to work at its economic viability before it starts looking at independence.
Edit, there is also RBS but they have not paid tax in a decade.
Mr. Byronic, as an aside, Thessalonica[sp] was named after Cassander's wife. It was common for the Diadochi (Successors to Alexander) to name cities after themselves. Antioch, Lysimacheia[sp] and so forth are all either renamed or forgotten.
But Cassander's wife still gives her name to Greece's second city.
Apparently Alexander really didn't like Cassander, I think he was the chap whose head Alexander smacked repeatedly against a stone wall when he laughed at proskynesis (very much a Persian rather than Macedonian tradition. Worth noting lots of others didn't like it either, although it turns out laughing at Alexander the Great might lead to a banging headache).
It does seem there's more focus on mudslinging and trying to affix blame than find a solution.
The media's right to point out the PM's daftness, but seem curiously disinterested in the perversity of the EU refusing to acknowledge their withdrawal agreement cannot pass the Commons, and wanting the PM to come up with a backstop alternative whilst simultaneously promising to renegotiate nothing and reject whatever he says.
No Deal will be an enormous failure of statecraft on both sides, should it happen. Lots of Leavers will get the blame, and rightly, but Barnier, Juncker, Verhoefstadt et al will be publicly shamed, as well. Once they have all been pelted with rotten turnips, attention will turn to earlier culprits, like Cameron. And the madder europhiles.
It will be like the moral aftermath of the Iraq War.
Who said this and when?
The tragedy for British politics - for Britain - has been that politicians of both parties have consistently failed, not just in the 1950s but on up to the present day, to appreciate the emerging reality of European integration. And in doing so, they have failed Britain's interests.
I have no idea but given that you’re trying to be provocative, my guess is either Boris or Thatcher ?
It does seem there's more focus on mudslinging and trying to affix blame than find a solution.
The media's right to point out the PM's daftness, but seem curiously disinterested in the perversity of the EU refusing to acknowledge their withdrawal agreement cannot pass the Commons, and wanting the PM to come up with a backstop alternative whilst simultaneously promising to renegotiate nothing and reject whatever he says.
No Deal will be an enormous failure of statecraft on both sides, should it happen. Lots of Leavers will get the blame, and rightly, but Barnier, Juncker, Verhoefstadt et al will be publicly shamed, as well. Once they have all been pelted with rotten turnips, attention will turn to earlier culprits, like Cameron. And the madder europhiles.
It will be like the moral aftermath of the Iraq War.
Who said this and when?
The tragedy for British politics - for Britain - has been that politicians of both parties have consistently failed, not just in the 1950s but on up to the present day, to appreciate the emerging reality of European integration. And in doing so, they have failed Britain's interests.
I have no idea but given that you’re trying to be provocative, my guess is either Boris or Thatcher ?
It does seem there's more focus on mudslinging and trying to affix blame than find a solution.
The media's right to point out the PM's daftness, but seem curiously disinterested in the perversity of the EU refusing to acknowledge their withdrawal agreement cannot pass the Commons, and wanting the PM to come up with a backstop alternative whilst simultaneously promising to renegotiate nothing and reject whatever he says.
No Deal will be an enormous failure of statecraft on both sides, should it happen. Lots of Leavers will get the blame, and rightly, but Barnier, Juncker, Verhoefstadt et al will be publicly shamed, as well. Once they have all been pelted with rotten turnips, attention will turn to earlier culprits, like Cameron. And the madder europhiles.
It will be like the moral aftermath of the Iraq War.
Who said this and when?
The tragedy for British politics - for Britain - has been that politicians of both parties have consistently failed, not just in the 1950s but on up to the present day, to appreciate the emerging reality of European integration. And in doing so, they have failed Britain's interests.
I have no idea but given that you’re trying to be provocative, my guess is either Boris or Thatcher ?
Blair was the man who promised and then denied us a referendum on the EU constitution. A despicable decision which led directly if belatedly to Brexit. What a horrible man.
When the post No Deal Lynchings begin, I want to see Blair hanging (metaphorically) from the (allegorical) tree. Perhaps he should be first.
When Tony Blair is standing in front of St Peter, it's unlikely the EU Constitution will even merit a mention relative to some of his other sins
Look at the bollox from GERS, you would have thought they might have tried to make the numbers look like someone might believe them. As subtle as a brick Scotland deficit 🏴 - £12.6bn Wales deficit - £13.7bn N.I deficit - circa £9bn
Celtic total - £34.8bn UK deficit 🇬🇧 - £23.5bn
So England has a surplus of about £11bn & Scotland is creating 53% of UK deficit from 8-9% of population.
Why do you find that surprising Malcolm? Our private sector is in a parlous state and many of our financial companies moved south when threatened by Indyref 1. If you look at the FTSE 100 I think you will find SSE, Firstgroup, HBOS and Cairn Energy. I may have missed one but I think that's it.
Now you can make the case that some of these companies make quite a lot of their money in Scotland but have their registered offices in England. But the Scottish tax base is a real problem, not a fiction of the ONS.
Public expenditure in Scotland is significantly higher per head than in England. You can again argue that there are reasons for that but the numbers are indisputable.
As I said earlier today Scotland really needs to work at its economic viability before it starts looking at independence.
David, Scotland may well be in a technical deficit. But in terms of national income per head, labour productivity, employment etc. Scotland is pretty much on a par with Rest of U.K.. And public services are not exactly gold-plated here. GERS is a political exercise and numbers are plucked out of someones erchie. They have no clue how to split some of the numbers,. GERS uses "estimated " 167 times. Those numbers are just fake , otherwise Scotland would be Shangri La.
It does seem there's more focus on mudslinging and trying to affix blame than find a solution.
The media's right to point out the PM's daftness, but seem curiously disinterested in the perversity of the EU refusing to acknowledge their withdrawal agreement cannot pass the Commons, and wanting the PM to come up with a backstop alternative whilst simultaneously promising to renegotiate nothing and reject whatever he says.
No Deal will be an enormous failure of statecraft on both sides, should it happen. Lots of Leavers will get the blame, and rightly, but Barnier, Juncker, Verhoefstadt et al will be publicly shamed, as well. Once they have all been pelted with rotten turnips, attention will turn to earlier culprits, like Cameron. And the madder europhiles.
It will be like the moral aftermath of the Iraq War.
Who said this and when?
The tragedy for British politics - for Britain - has been that politicians of both parties have consistently failed, not just in the 1950s but on up to the present day, to appreciate the emerging reality of European integration. And in doing so, they have failed Britain's interests.
Tony Blair and his "Britain at the heart of Europe" nonsense. That went well...
It was John Major who said he wanted to put Britain at the heart of Europe (though I am sure Blair agreed with him).
Be surprised about Major, even if he thought it. He spent most of his Premiership fighting off the bastards and would have been reluctant to provoke them unnecessarily.
Look at the bollox from GERS, you would have thought they might have tried to make the numbers look like someone might believe them. As subtle as a brick Scotland deficit 🏴 - £12.6bn Wales deficit - £13.7bn N.I deficit - circa £9bn
Celtic total - £34.8bn UK deficit 🇬🇧 - £23.5bn
So England has a surplus of about £11bn & Scotland is creating 53% of UK deficit from 8-9% of population.
Why do you find that surprising Malcolm? Our private sector is in a parlous state and many of our financial companies moved south when threatened by Indyref 1. If you look at the FTSE 100 I think you will find SSE, Firstgroup, HBOS and Cairn Energy. I may have missed one but I think that's it.
Now you can make the case that some of these companies make quite a lot of their money in Scotland but have their registered offices in England. But the Scottish tax base is a real problem, not a fiction of the ONS.
Public expenditure in Scotland is significantly higher per head than in England. You can again argue that there are reasons for that but the numbers are indisputable.
As I said earlier today Scotland really needs to work at its economic viability before it starts looking at independence.
David, Scotland may well be in a technical deficit. But in terms of national income per head, labour productivity, employment etc. Scotland is pretty much on a par with Rest of U.K.. And public services are not exactly gold-plated here. GERS is a political exercise and numbers are plucked out of someones erchie. They have no clue how to split some of the numbers,. GERS uses "estimated " 167 times. Those numbers are just fake , otherwise Scotland would be Shangri La.
Why didn't you simply say "I don't like these numbers, so they can't be true"?
Some quick thoughts on the HS2 review. According to the BBC (1), the review will look into:
*) cost estimates so far *) opportunities for efficiency savings *) the environmental impact, focusing specifically on net zero carbon commitment *) whether the economic and business case made for HS2 is accurate *) the added costs of cancelling the project or changing its scope, such as combining phases 1 and 2a (Birmingham to Crewe), reducing the speed or building only phase 1
This seems to me as though they've decided on the answers to some fairly important questions before the review has even started. How would I structure the review?
I don’t think Boris is gonna cancel. He’s just doing the right thing and putting some critics of high speed rail on the review board, along with lots of enthusiasts. What kind of review would it be if it was only written by HS2 fanboys?
My hunch: they will seek very significant savings. Stop at Old Oak. Stop at Crewe. Etc
A classic bit of British fudge.
London to Brum to provide additional capacity where it is needed. Reduced maximum speed to save some cash. Nothing further north, since that is a vanity project. Divert the money to HS3.
That's what I reckon, anyway.
How do you build H3 without Crewe to Manc part of HS2?
Honeslty interested in how that happens?????
Reducing maximum speed is also bonkers. If you gonna build the thing, make it up to date.
Some quick thoughts on the HS2 review. According to the BBC (1), the review will look into:
*) cost estimates so far *) opportunities for efficiency savings *) the environmental impact, focusing specifically on net zero carbon commitment *) whether the economic and business case made for HS2 is accurate *) the added costs of cancelling the project or changing its scope, such as combining phases 1 and 2a (Birmingham to Crewe), reducing the speed or building only phase 1
This seems to me as though they've decided on the answers to some fairly important questions before the review has even started. How would I structure the review?
I don’t think Boris is gonna cancel. He’s just doing the right thing and putting some critics of high speed rail on the review board, along with lots of enthusiasts. What kind of review would it be if it was only written by HS2 fanboys?
My hunch: they will seek very significant savings. Stop at Old Oak. Stop at Crewe. Etc
A classic bit of British fudge.
London to Brum to provide additional capacity where it is needed. Reduced maximum speed to save some cash. Nothing further north, since that is a vanity project. Divert the money to HS3.
That's what I reckon, anyway.
How do you build H3 without Crewe to Manc part of HS2?
Honeslty interested in how that happens?????
New line Manc to Leeds. Separate from HS2. Serving northerners, not Londoners visiting the north!
It does seem there's more focus on mudslinging and trying to affix blame than find a solution.
The media's right to point out the PM's daftness, but seem curiously disinterested in the perversity of the EU refusing to acknowledge their withdrawal agreement cannot pass the Commons, and wanting the PM to come up with a backstop alternative whilst simultaneously promising to renegotiate nothing and reject whatever he says.
No Deal will be an enormous failure of statecraft on both sides, should it happen. Lots of Leavers will get the blame, and rightly, but Barnier, Juncker, Verhoefstadt et al will be publicly shamed, as well. Once they have all been pelted with rotten turnips, attention will turn to earlier culprits, like Cameron. And the madder europhiles.
It will be like the moral aftermath of the Iraq War.
Who said this and when?
The tragedy for British politics - for Britain - has been that politicians of both parties have consistently failed, not just in the 1950s but on up to the present day, to appreciate the emerging reality of European integration. And in doing so, they have failed Britain's interests.
I have no idea but given that you’re trying to be provocative, my guess is either Boris or Thatcher ?
Blair was the man who promised and then denied us a referendum on the EU constitution. A despicable decision which led directly if belatedly to Brexit. What a horrible man.
When the post No Deal Lynchings begin, I want to see Blair hanging (metaphorically) from the (allegorical) tree. Perhaps he should be first.
When Tony Blair is standing in front of St Peter, it's unlikely the EU Constitution will even merit a mention relative to some of his other sins
He does have quite a backlist. But I was speaking particularly of Brexit. And who must take the blame for it even happening.
Blair is near the top of the pile. His outrageous lies over the Constitution, and the promised-but-denied referendum, poured joyous vats of lighter fuel on the smouldering embers of euroscepticism.
Some quick thoughts on the HS2 review. According to the BBC (1), the review will look into:
*) cost estimates so far *) opportunities for efficiency savings *) the environmental impact, focusing specifically on net zero carbon commitment *) whether the economic and business case made for HS2 is accurate *) the added costs of cancelling the project or changing its scope, such as combining phases 1 and 2a (Birmingham to Crewe), reducing the speed or building only phase 1
This seems to me as though they've decided on the answers to some fairly important questions before the review has even started. How would I structure the review?
I don’t think Boris is gonna cancel. He’s just doing the right thing and putting some critics of high speed rail on the review board, along with lots of enthusiasts. What kind of review would it be if it was only written by HS2 fanboys?
My hunch: they will seek very significant savings. Stop at Old Oak. Stop at Crewe. Etc
A classic bit of British fudge.
London to Brum to provide additional capacity where it is needed. Reduced maximum speed to save some cash. Nothing further north, since that is a vanity project. Divert the money to HS3.
That's what I reckon, anyway.
How do you build H3 without Crewe to Manc part of HS2?
Honeslty interested in how that happens?????
New line Manc to Leeds. Separate from HS2. Serving northerners, not Londoners visiting the north!
If you want the biggest bang for the buck, you make them part of a contiguous network, planned as such.
And heaven forfend any northerners want to visit London or the south!
(Written from a B&B in Wigtown in Dumfries and Galloway, where Mrs J has been very happily buying books. It's a lovely part of the world.)
Look at the bollox from GERS, you would have thought they might have tried to make the numbers look like someone might believe them. As subtle as a brick Scotland deficit 🏴 - £12.6bn Wales deficit - £13.7bn N.I deficit - circa £9bn
Celtic total - £34.8bn UK deficit 🇬🇧 - £23.5bn
So England has a surplus of about £11bn & Scotland is creating 53% of UK deficit from 8-9% of population.
Why do you find that surprising Malcolm? Our private sector is in a parlous state and many of our financial companies moved south when threatened by Indyref 1. If you look at the FTSE 100 I think you will find SSE, Firstgroup, HBOS and Cairn Energy. I may have missed one but I think that's it.
Now you can make the case that some of these companies make quite a lot of their money in Scotland but have their registered offices in England. But the Scottish tax base is a real problem, not a fiction of the ONS.
Public expenditure in Scotland is significantly higher per head than in England. You can again argue that there are reasons for that but the numbers are indisputable.
As I said earlier today Scotland really needs to work at its economic viability before it starts looking at independence.
David, Scotland may well be in a technical deficit. But in terms of national income per head, labour productivity, employment etc. Scotland is pretty much on a par with Rest of U.K.. And public services are not exactly gold-plated here. GERS is a political exercise and numbers are plucked out of someones erchie. They have no clue how to split some of the numbers,. GERS uses "estimated " 167 times. Those numbers are just fake , otherwise Scotland would be Shangri La.
I think that is a mistake. The first step to addressing a problem is to acknowledge that you have one. Our Parliament should be doing all it can to encourage enterprise north of the border. This does not include creating differential taxes for the mobile higher paid, promising lots of "free" stuff that might be electorally popular in the short term, refusing to get to grips with how our excellent universities are going to compete given the level of funding available to them, claiming our school reforms have worked, etc, etc.
Look at the bollox from GERS, you would have thought they might have tried to make the numbers look like someone might believe them. As subtle as a brick Scotland deficit 🏴 - £12.6bn Wales deficit - £13.7bn N.I deficit - circa £9bn
Celtic total - £34.8bn UK deficit 🇬🇧 - £23.5bn
So England has a surplus of about £11bn & Scotland is creating 53% of UK deficit from 8-9% of population.
well yes, but look at how everyone is fighting to get Northern Ireland I reckon with all those cuddly Presbyterians the English should cough up more, you Scots need a subsidy rise too.
Look at the bollox from GERS, you would have thought they might have tried to make the numbers look like someone might believe them. As subtle as a brick Scotland deficit 🏴 - £12.6bn Wales deficit - £13.7bn N.I deficit - circa £9bn
Celtic total - £34.8bn UK deficit 🇬🇧 - £23.5bn
So England has a surplus of about £11bn & Scotland is creating 53% of UK deficit from 8-9% of population.
well yes, but look at how everyone is fighting to get Northern Ireland I reckon with all those cuddly Presbyterians the English should cough up more, you Scots need a subsidy rise too.
Some quick thoughts on the HS2 review. According to the BBC (1), the review will look into:
*) cost estimates so far *) opportunities for efficiency savings *) the environmental impact, focusing specifically on net zero carbon commitment *) whether the economic and business case made for HS2 is accurate *) the added costs of cancelling the project or changing its scope, such as combining phases 1 and 2a (Birmingham to Crewe), reducing the speed or building only phase 1
This seems to me as though they've decided on the answers to some fairly important questions before the review has even started. How would I structure the review?
I don’t think Boris is gonna cancel. He’s just doing the right thing and putting some critics of high speed rail on the review board, along with lots of enthusiasts. What kind of review would it be if it was only written by HS2 fanboys?
My hunch: they will seek very significant savings. Stop at Old Oak. Stop at Crewe. Etc
A classic bit of British fudge.
London to Brum to provide additional capacity where it is needed. Reduced maximum speed to save some cash. Nothing further north, since that is a vanity project. Divert the money to HS3.
That's what I reckon, anyway.
How do you build H3 without Crewe to Manc part of HS2?
Honeslty interested in how that happens?????
New line Manc to Leeds. Separate from HS2. Serving northerners, not Londoners visiting the north!
Line between just Manc and Leeds is hardly worthwhile, needs to extend to Hull and Liverpool, the part of Liverpool being over HS2.
Some quick thoughts on the HS2 review. According to the BBC (1), the review will look into:
*) cost estimates so far *) opportunities for efficiency savings *) the environmental impact, focusing specifically on net zero carbon commitment *) whether the economic and business case made for HS2 is accurate *) the added costs of cancelling the project or changing its scope, such as combining phases 1 and 2a (Birmingham to Crewe), reducing the speed or building only phase 1
This seems to me as though they've decided on the answers to some fairly important questions before the review has even started. How would I structure the review?
I don’t think Boris is gonna cancel. He’s just doing the right thing and putting some critics of high speed rail on the review board, along with lots of enthusiasts. What kind of review would it be if it was only written by HS2 fanboys?
My hunch: they will seek very significant savings. Stop at Old Oak. Stop at Crewe. Etc
A classic bit of British fudge.
London to Brum to provide additional capacity where it is needed. Reduced maximum speed to save some cash. Nothing further north, since that is a vanity project. Divert the money to HS3.
That's what I reckon, anyway.
How do you build H3 without Crewe to Manc part of HS2?
Honeslty interested in how that happens?????
New line Manc to Leeds. Separate from HS2. Serving northerners, not Londoners visiting the north!
Line between just Manc and Leeds is hardly worthwhile, needs to extend to Hull and Liverpool, the part of Liverpool being over HS2.
Look at the bollox from GERS, you would have thought they might have tried to make the numbers look like someone might believe them. As subtle as a brick Scotland deficit 🏴 - £12.6bn Wales deficit - £13.7bn N.I deficit - circa £9bn
Celtic total - £34.8bn UK deficit 🇬🇧 - £23.5bn
So England has a surplus of about £11bn & Scotland is creating 53% of UK deficit from 8-9% of population.
well yes, but look at how everyone is fighting to get Northern Ireland I reckon with all those cuddly Presbyterians the English should cough up more, you Scots need a subsidy rise too.
Look at the bollox from GERS, you would have thought they might have tried to make the numbers look like someone might believe them. As subtle as a brick Scotland deficit 🏴 - £12.6bn Wales deficit - £13.7bn N.I deficit - circa £9bn
Celtic total - £34.8bn UK deficit 🇬🇧 - £23.5bn
So England has a surplus of about £11bn & Scotland is creating 53% of UK deficit from 8-9% of population.
Why do you find that surprising Malcolm? Our private sector is in a parlous state and many of our financial companies moved south when threatened by Indyref 1. If you look at the FTSE 100 I think you will find SSE, Firstgroup, HBOS and Cairn Energy. I may have missed one but I think that's it.
Now you can make the case that some of these companies make quite a lot of their money in Scotland but have their registered offices in England. But the Scottish tax base is a real problem, not a fiction of the ONS.
Public expenditure in Scotland is significantly higher per head than in England. You can again argue that there are reasons for that but the numbers are indisputable.
As I said earlier today Scotland really needs to work at its economic viability before it starts looking at independence.
David, Scotland may well be in a technical deficit. But in terms of national income per head, labour productivity, employment etc. Scotland is pretty much on a par with Rest of U.K.. And public services are not exactly gold-plated here. GERS is a political exercise and numbers are plucked out of someones erchie. They have no clue how to split some of the numbers,. GERS uses "estimated " 167 times. Those numbers are just fake , otherwise Scotland would be Shangri La.
Why didn't you simply say "I don't like these numbers, so they can't be true"?
It would have saved you a lot of time
The whole point is that anyone with a brain cell working can see they are fake. Does not take an economics genius, you would expect them to at least try and make their guesses at least look even a little bit realistic. It is naked politics.
ON topic, I had breakfast next to comedian Paul Whitehouse this morning (in a Thessaloniki hotel). He was telling his little daughter the history of Turkey under Kemal Ataturk (a son of the town). His daughter must be about seven years old so she just stared at him in total bewilderment.
It was like a comic sketch from The Fast Show, in which he starred, “Over-informative dad”. I couldn’t work out if he was doing it to amuse himself or this is just how he interacts with his kids. Fascinating to watch.
Look at the bollox from GERS, you would have thought they might have tried to make the numbers look like someone might believe them. As subtle as a brick Scotland deficit 🏴 - £12.6bn Wales deficit - £13.7bn N.I deficit - circa £9bn
Celtic total - £34.8bn UK deficit 🇬🇧 - £23.5bn
So England has a surplus of about £11bn & Scotland is creating 53% of UK deficit from 8-9% of population.
Why do you find that surprising Malcolm? Our private sector is in a parlous state and many of our financial companies moved south when threatened by Indyref 1. If you look at the FTSE 100 I think you will find SSE, Firstgroup, HBOS and Cairn Energy. I may have missed one but I think that's it.
Now you can make the case that some of these companies make quite a lot of their money in Scotland but have their registered offices in England. But the Scottish tax base is a real problem, not a fiction of the ONS.
Public expenditure in Scotland is significantly higher per head than in England. You can again argue that there are reasons for that but the numbers are indisputable.
As I said earlier today Scotland really needs to work at its economic viability before it starts looking at independence.
David, Scotland may well be in a technical deficit. But in terms of national income per head, labour productivity, employment etc. Scotland is pretty much on a par with Rest of U.K.. And public services are not exactly gold-plated here. GERS is a political exercise and numbers are plucked out of someones erchie. They have no clue how to split some of the numbers,. GERS uses "estimated " 167 times. Those numbers are just fake , otherwise Scotland would be Shangri La.
Why didn't you simply say "I don't like these numbers, so they can't be true"?
It would have saved you a lot of time
The whole point is that anyone with a brain cell working can see they are fake. Does not take an economics genius, you would expect them to at least try and make their guesses at least look even a little bit realistic. It is naked politics.
It does seem there's more focus on mudslinging and trying to affix blame than find a solution.
The media's right to point out the PM's daftness, but seem curiously disinterested in the perversity of the EU refusing to acknowledge their withdrawal agreement cannot pass the Commons, and wanting the PM to come up with a backstop alternative whilst simultaneously promising to renegotiate nothing and reject whatever he says.
No Deal will be an enormous failure of statecraft on both sides, should it happen. Lots of Leavers will get the blame, and rightly, but Barnier, Juncker, Verhoefstadt et al will be publicly shamed, as well. Once they have all been pelted with rotten turnips, attention will turn to earlier culprits, like Cameron. And the madder europhiles.
It will be like the moral aftermath of the Iraq War.
Who said this and when?
The tragedy for British politics - for Britain - has been that politicians of both parties have consistently failed, not just in the 1950s but on up to the present day, to appreciate the emerging reality of European integration. And in doing so, they have failed Britain's interests.
Tony Blair and his "Britain at the heart of Europe" nonsense. That went well...
It was John Major who said he wanted to put Britain at the heart of Europe (though I am sure Blair agreed with him).
Be surprised about Major, even if he thought it. He spent most of his Premiership fighting off the bastards and would have been reluctant to provoke them unnecessarily.
Gentleman John certainty spoke about Britain being at the 'heart of Europe', though there's been some revisionism to suggest he meant 'at the heart of the debate about the future of Europe'.
ON topic, I had breakfast next to comedian Paul Whitehouse this morning (in a Thessaloniki hotel). He was telling his little daughter the history of Turkey under Kemal Ataturk (a son of the town). His daughter must be about seven years old so she just stared at him in total bewilderment.
It was like a comic sketch from The Fast Show, in which he starred, “Over-informative dad”. I couldn’t work out if he was doing it to amuse himself or this is just how he interacts with his kids. Fascinating to watch.
Isn't secularism brilliant? Complete separation of the State from religious influence. Ace.
Comments
Why do we keep electing these fools?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_high-speed_railway_lines
Average polling lead for the Tories in August ... 7%. Ever since Dick Braine took the UKIP crown too.
A fundamental problem is not enough people join political parties, which seem increasingly to be filled with zealous fanatics. Look at Con Party. It had 2 million members or something like that in 1950s.
I guess the point I'm making is that an outcome on either extreme which doesn't leave most people shrugging "'s OK, I suppose" will mean this goes on. No Dealers should be careful what they wish for.
Warren's "+2" points towards well possible defeat here for me. I've backed her in the nomination and laid her out in the presidency markets.
Personally, I'd prefer a deal so we can talk about something else for a change. The traffic flow stuff was interesting and there is another test starting tomorrow. I really wish those overpaid idiots who claim to represent us would just get on with it.
Furthermore from media interviews with the public there does seem to be a view to get it finished and Boris optimism contrasts sharply with labour's misery and all doom and gloom
As I have commented a couple of times recently this forum is at times aggressive, intolerant, and nasty coming from both sides and for those of us who voted remain but want to leave because of democracy we despair.
I think Boris is following a strategy of being reasonable with the EU, publishing his correspondence, and generally his expectations of a deal are very much a part of showing the EU as the bad guys and it may just be working.
However, it is clear that he either hopes the HOC prevents a no deal or he is gambling on a last minute deal when the clock ticks towards 11.00pm on the 31st October.
If we arrive a day or two before deadlocked, I expect him to seek an extension and that will be the biggest danger to his poll ratings and premiership
*) cost estimates so far
*) opportunities for efficiency savings
*) the environmental impact, focusing specifically on net zero carbon commitment
*) whether the economic and business case made for HS2 is accurate
*) the added costs of cancelling the project or changing its scope, such as combining phases 1 and 2a (Birmingham to Crewe), reducing the speed or building only phase 1
This seems to me as though they've decided on the answers to some fairly important questions before the review has even started. How would I structure the review?
1) look at the basic need for HS2. Back in the late 2000s when the project was first mooted, traffic predictions for the WCML and associated railways were made. How have these stood up since then? Are the traffic levels less than, more than, or the same as predicted? How have competing modes of transport (coaches, cars, planes) altered over that period over similar routes?
2) If traffic levels are the same as, or greater than, predicted, is there still a projected capacity crunch to the south of Birmingham on the WCML?
3) Try to get firm up-to-date costs for the HS2 project, and highlight projected risks - especially with the experience of Crossrail and the Great Western electrification debacles.
4) look at the Atkins report (2) into the alternatives to HS2. If 2) show there is still going to be a need for capacity on the WCML, do any of the rejected alternatives now look better value?
5) What are the costs of *not* doing it? How will reduced paths for trains on the WCML affect the usage of trains and alternatives (coaches, cars, planes etc), and how will ticket prices increase? Will local services be denuded by the need to increase paths for high-speed non-stop services?
6) How much would cancelling HS2 affect the business case for HS3/Northern Powerhouse Rail? How much would it affect (negatively or positively) other planned and proposed network enhancements?
7) Given all of the above, if HS2 is cancelled or descoped, what do we do instead?
8) How will any large alterations to the scheme proposed by this review affect delivery timescales and costs? How much do they address existing complaints about the project, and what future complaints might they cause?
These questions seem to me to be at the heart of the HS2 question. A review that does not answer them will be rather incomplete.
(1) : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49420332
(2) : https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/253456/hs2-strategic-alternatives.pdf
Boris is bluffing. It's all bluster. Come the crunch he will blink and bottle it although he will still have Carrie.
After 31 Oct he will be known by all as Bluffing Blustering Blinking Bottling Bonking Boris.
What chance then of beating Corbyn at the polls? Not good.
How can EU commissioners be got rid of?
It’s like a cow criticizing a fat lady for being “bovine”
The government should beware: a disruptive Leave is only going to make the "wrongs" organise to take their revenge.
The only ways for a member of the Commission to lose their post before the end of the Commission’s five-year term are (according to TFEU, article 246) if they die, resign, or are compulsorily retired. The President of the Commission can force any member to resign, and the European Parliament can force the whole Commission to resign by a vote of no confidence. Compulsory retirement happens when the Court of Justice decides (on application by the Commission or the Council) that a member of the Commission is either unfit for office or is guilty of “serious misconduct”.
So the EU Parliament still cannot remove a single commissioner if he is deemed incompetent, dishonest etc.
My hunch: they will seek very significant savings. Stop at Old Oak. Stop at Crewe. Etc
A classic bit of British fudge.
It does seem there's more focus on mudslinging and trying to affix blame than find a solution.
The media's right to point out the PM's daftness, but seem curiously disinterested in the perversity of the EU refusing to acknowledge their withdrawal agreement cannot pass the Commons, and wanting the PM to come up with a backstop alternative whilst simultaneously promising to renegotiate nothing and reject whatever he says.
And I am not sure what he has to complain about. The Fed cut interest rates late in the cycle despite a dangerously loose monetary policy, they stopped clawing back QE and they seem fairly thoroughly cowed by Trump. Clearly Trump thinks that if a recession comes before an election he needs someone to blame and its not going to be him.
It will be like the moral aftermath of the Iraq War.
The tragedy for British politics - for Britain - has been that politicians of both parties have consistently failed, not just in the 1950s but on up to the present day, to appreciate the emerging reality of European integration. And in doing so, they have failed Britain's interests.
Stopping it at Crewe also adjusts the CBR equation, and means any hope of a connected high-speed network to benefit the north goes out of the window.
(*) It'd be interesting to consider if this decision was a mistake - and if it was, whether HS2 could learn from it.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/nov/23/euro.eu1
Look at the bollox from GERS, you would have thought they might have tried to make the numbers look like someone might believe them. As subtle as a brick
Scotland deficit
🏴
- £12.6bn
Wales deficit - £13.7bn
N.I deficit - circa £9bn
Celtic total - £34.8bn
UK deficit
🇬🇧
- £23.5bn
So England has a surplus of about £11bn & Scotland is creating 53% of UK deficit from 8-9% of population.
I have vague memories (didn't watch it) of Johnson fronting a TV programme, possibly a two-parter, about the EU as successor to the Roman Empire.
It's clear that the Tories are ahead at the moment, but I doubt if Kantar ("forget the Brexit Party and tweak for false recall") is right. We could do with some second preference/willingness to vote tactically surveys too.
When the post No Deal Lynchings begin, I want to see Blair hanging (metaphorically) from the (allegorical) tree. Perhaps he should be first.
That's what I reckon, anyway.
Honeslty interested in how that happens?????
It was like a comic sketch from The Fast Show, in which he starred, “Over-informative dad”. I couldn’t work out if he was doing it to amuse himself or this is just how he interacts with his kids. Fascinating to watch.
Now you can make the case that some of these companies make quite a lot of their money in Scotland but have their registered offices in England. But the Scottish tax base is a real problem, not a fiction of the ONS.
Public expenditure in Scotland is significantly higher per head than in England. You can again argue that there are reasons for that but the numbers are indisputable.
As I said earlier today Scotland really needs to work at its economic viability before it starts looking at independence.
Edit, there is also RBS but they have not paid tax in a decade.
But Cassander's wife still gives her name to Greece's second city.
Apparently Alexander really didn't like Cassander, I think he was the chap whose head Alexander smacked repeatedly against a stone wall when he laughed at proskynesis (very much a Persian rather than Macedonian tradition. Worth noting lots of others didn't like it either, although it turns out laughing at Alexander the Great might lead to a banging headache).
Scotland may well be in a technical deficit. But in terms of national income per head, labour productivity, employment etc. Scotland is pretty much on a par with Rest of U.K.. And public services are not exactly gold-plated here. GERS is a political exercise and numbers are plucked out of someones erchie. They have no clue how to split some of the numbers,. GERS uses "estimated " 167 times.
Those numbers are just fake , otherwise Scotland would be Shangri La.
Be surprised about Major, even if he thought it. He spent most of his Premiership fighting off the bastards and would have been reluctant to provoke them unnecessarily.
It would have saved you a lot of time
https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1164202952191614976
nonsense, he must mean Varadkar
ousted his predecessor, hasnt fought an election, loves ramping violence.
Blair is near the top of the pile. His outrageous lies over the Constitution, and the promised-but-denied referendum, poured joyous vats of lighter fuel on the smouldering embers of euroscepticism.
And heaven forfend any northerners want to visit London or the south!
(Written from a B&B in Wigtown in Dumfries and Galloway, where Mrs J has been very happily buying books. It's a lovely part of the world.)
https://twitter.com/jennyhillbbc/status/1164205160232607744?s=21
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgMgkl-gRxk
https://www.brugesgroup.com/media-centre/papers/8-papers/801-john-major-and-europe-the-failure-of-a-policy-1990-7