All Boris's Christmases come at once if Macron blocks any changes, leading to No Deal.....
Mandy Rice-Davies applies. Macron will sign up at the Council when everything is agreed, no sooner. Just as Macron was going to veto an extension in HYUFD's imagination because that was what was being reported, until he didn't. Macron isn't the key player here, Merkel and Varadkar are.
Boris needs to look into the whites of Varadkar's eyes, have him convinced that the backstop is dead, then offer a fig leaf for the EU to back down on so they can save face.
The Irish press is becoming increasingly worried about No Deal and their governments refusal to say what they are going to do about it.
Indeed and Merkel has just started a face saving manoeuvre to permit Varadkar to back down.
He was always bluffing it was obvious he was always bluffing but it didn't matter when he faced in May and Robbins opponents who were going to fold. Now Boris is calling his bluff he needs a way out. The writing it on the wall.
He can either be the fool who caused a no deal Brexit by insisting on a backstop designed to prevent it ... or he can be the statesman who found the last minute compromise and be a hero who avoided no deal. It's obvious which way he will go as much as people here flap about in denial.
Not only is it obvious but I suspect Merkel wouldn't have done this yesterday had Varadkar not already agreed it with her.
Would you care for a bet on the subject?
I've already agreed multiple bets on the subject. I am not a heavy gambler so would not like to bet more. This is already my biggest bet since the 2010 General Election.
All Boris's Christmases come at once if Macron blocks any changes, leading to No Deal.....
Mandy Rice-Davies applies. Macron will sign up at the Council when everything is agreed, no sooner. Just as Macron was going to veto an extension in HYUFD's imagination because that was what was being reported, until he didn't. Macron isn't the key player here, Merkel and Varadkar are.
Boris needs to look into the whites of Varadkar's eyes, have him convinced that the backstop is dead, then offer a fig leaf for the EU to back down on so they can save face.
The Irish press is becoming increasingly worried about No Deal and their governments refusal to say what they are going to do about it.
Indeed and Merkel has just started a face saving manoeuvre to permit Varadkar to back down.
He was always bluffing it was obvious he was always bluffing but it didn't matter when he faced in May and Robbins opponents who were going to fold. Now Boris is calling his bluff he needs a way out. The writing it on the wall.
He can either be the fool who caused a no deal Brexit by insisting on a backstop designed to prevent it ... or he can be the statesman who found the last minute compromise and be a hero who avoided no deal. It's obvious which way he will go as much as people here flap about in denial.
Not only is it obvious but I suspect Merkel wouldn't have done this yesterday had Varadkar not already agreed it with her.
If No Deal is no problem, why would Varadkar destroy his political career by backing down?
No Deal is a problem, The Irish government accept that. It's not yet clear if it is a manageable one.
All Boris's Christmases come at once if Macron blocks any changes, leading to No Deal.....
Mandy Rice-Davies applies. Macron will sign up at the Council when everything is agreed, no sooner. Just as Macron was going to veto an extension in HYUFD's imagination because that was what was being reported, until he didn't. Macron isn't the key player here, Merkel and Varadkar are.
Boris needs to look into the whites of Varadkar's eyes, have him convinced that the backstop is dead, then offer a fig leaf for the EU to back down on so they can save face.
The Irish press is becoming increasingly worried about No Deal and their governments refusal to say what they are going to do about it.
Indeed and Merkel has just started a face saving manoeuvre to permit Varadkar to back down.
He was always bluffing it was obvious he was always bluffing but it didn't matter when he faced in May and Robbins opponents who were going to fold. Now Boris is calling his bluff he needs a way out. The writing it on the wall.
He can either be the fool who caused a no deal Brexit by insisting on a backstop designed to prevent it ... or he can be the statesman who found the last minute compromise and be a hero who avoided no deal. It's obvious which way he will go as much as people here flap about in denial.
Not only is it obvious but I suspect Merkel wouldn't have done this yesterday had Varadkar not already agreed it with her.
If No Deal is no problem, why would Varadkar destroy his political career by backing down?
Because his political career - and Ireland's economy - is destroyed by not backing down? It must be a tough call though....
Nor do I understand why the papers today are presenting Boris’s visit yesterday as some great victory. All Merkel did was to say “Come up with an alternative that works.” If Boris had one he’d surely have told us. He doesn’t. He won’t. So on to no deal we go. Have I missed anything?
Because the papers want to promote Mr Johnson, so that he can win the next election.
Ms Merkel has just done what she does very well, which is to stand firm, while letting her guest think they have heard something that they wanted to hear.
He was always bluffing it was obvious he was always bluffing but it didn't matter when he faced in May and Robbins opponents who were going to fold. Now Boris is calling his bluff he needs a way out. The writing it on the wall.
He can either be the fool who caused a no deal Brexit by insisting on a backstop designed to prevent it ... or he can be the statesman who found the last minute compromise and be a hero who avoided no deal. It's obvious which way he will go as much as people here flap about in denial.
Not only is it obvious but I suspect Merkel wouldn't have done this yesterday had Varadkar not already agreed it with her.
If he goes forward with No Deal it will be a brave call. Ireland will simply be sacrificing itself for the greater good of Brussels. While promises of support have been made, time moves on and the people change. I rether suspect Ireland will go back to being a small wet island nobody cares about but much poorer in the process.
Especially if he goes forward with no deal after Merkel had held open publicly the olive branch of reform to get a deal.
It's one thing to go down swinging when everyone else is publicly backing you and you thought your opposition would fold. It's another entirely when your own side are already wanting to move on and your opposition isn't folding.
A face saving Deal works for everyone. You read it here first.
All Boris's Christmases come at once if Macron blocks any changes, leading to No Deal.....
Mandy Rice-Davies applies. Macron will sign up at the Council when everything is agreed, no sooner. Just as Macron was going to veto an extension in HYUFD's imagination because that was what was being reported, until he didn't. Macron isn't the key player here, Merkel and Varadkar are.
Boris needs to look into the whites of Varadkar's eyes, have him convinced that the backstop is dead, then offer a fig leaf for the EU to back down on so they can save face.
The Irish press is becoming increasingly worried about No Deal and their governments refusal to say what they are going to do about it.
Indeed and Merkel has just started a face saving manoeuvre to permit Varadkar to back down.
He was always bluffing it was obvious he was always bluffing but it didn't matter when he faced in May and Robbins opponents who were going to fold. Now Boris is calling his bluff he needs a way out. The writing it on the wall.
He can either be the fool who caused a no deal Brexit by insisting on a backstop designed to prevent it ... or he can be the statesman who found the last minute compromise and be a hero who avoided no deal. It's obvious which way he will go as much as people here flap about in denial.
Not only is it obvious but I suspect Merkel wouldn't have done this yesterday had Varadkar not already agreed it with her.
If No Deal is no problem, why would Varadkar destroy his political career by backing down?
Because his political career - and Ireland's economy - is destroyed by not backing down? It must be a tough call though....
He and Coveney will be looked ater with EU jobs or directorships. The rest of the island will just have to pick up the pieces.
All Boris's Christmases come at once if Macron blocks any changes, leading to No Deal.....
Mandy Rice-Davies applies. Macron will sign up at the Council when everything is agreed, no sooner. Just as Macron was going to veto an extension in HYUFD's imagination because that was what was being reported, until he didn't. Macron isn't the key player here, Merkel and Varadkar are.
Boris needs to look into the whites of Varadkar's eyes, have him convinced that the backstop is dead, then offer a fig leaf for the EU to back down on so they can save face.
The Irish press is becoming increasingly worried about No Deal and their governments refusal to say what they are going to do about it.
Indeed and Merkel has just started a face saving manoeuvre to permit Varadkar to back down.
He was always bluffing it was obvious he was always bluffing but it didn't matter when he faced in May and Robbins opponents who were going to fold. Now Boris is calling his bluff he needs a way out. The writing it on the wall.
He can either be the fool who caused a no deal Brexit by insisting on a backstop designed to prevent it ... or he can be the statesman who found the last minute compromise and be a hero who avoided no deal. It's obvious which way he will go as much as people here flap about in denial.
Not only is it obvious but I suspect Merkel wouldn't have done this yesterday had Varadkar not already agreed it with her.
If No Deal is no problem, why would Varadkar destroy his political career by backing down?
No Deal is a problem, The Irish government accept that. It's not yet clear if it is a manageable one.
They also know it harms one country more than it harms Ireland.
I've already agreed multiple bets on the subject. I am not a heavy gambler so would not like to bet more. This is already my biggest bet since the 2010 General Election.
That's fair enough. But to be clear, I think you're reading this completely wrong. Angela Merkel is politely brushing Boris Johnson off.
He was always bluffing it was obvious he was always bluffing but it didn't matter when he faced in May and Robbins opponents who were going to fold. Now Boris is calling his bluff he needs a way out. The writing it on the wall.
He can either be the fool who caused a no deal Brexit by insisting on a backstop designed to prevent it ... or he can be the statesman who found the last minute compromise and be a hero who avoided no deal. It's obvious which way he will go as much as people here flap about in denial.
Not only is it obvious but I suspect Merkel wouldn't have done this yesterday had Varadkar not already agreed it with her.
If he goes forward with No Deal it will be a brave call. Ireland will simply be sacrificing itself for the greater good of Brussels. While promises of support have been made, time moves on and the people change. I rether suspect Ireland will go back to being a small wet island nobody cares about but much poorer in the process.
Especially if he goes forward with no deal after Merkel had held open publicly the olive branch of reform to get a deal.
It's one thing to go down swinging when everyone else is publicly backing you and you thought your opposition would fold. It's another entirely when your own side are already wanting to move on and your opposition isn't folding.
A face saving Deal works for everyone. You read it here first.
Too early to say what Merkel thinks, none o this will really move much before October.
I've already agreed multiple bets on the subject. I am not a heavy gambler so would not like to bet more. This is already my biggest bet since the 2010 General Election.
That's fair enough. But to be clear, I think you're reading this completely wrong. Angela Merkel is politely brushing Boris Johnson off.
In a sense Macron is being a better "friend" to Britain by not letting tact get in the way of clarity. Mrs Merkel's tact has been grossly overanalysed.
All Boris's Christmases come at once if Macron blocks any changes, leading to No Deal.....
Mandy Rice-Davies applies. Macron will sign up at the Council when everything is agreed, no sooner. Just as Macron was going to veto an extension in HYUFD's imagination because that was what was being reported, until he didn't. Macron isn't the key player here, Merkel and Varadkar are.
Boris needs to look into the whites of Varadkar's eyes, have him convinced that the backstop is dead, then offer a fig leaf for the EU to back down on so they can save face.
The Irish press is becoming increasingly worried about No Deal and their governments refusal to say what they are going to do about it.
Indeed and Merkel has just started a face saving manoeuvre to permit Varadkar to back down.
He was always bluffing it was obvious he was always bluffing but it didn't matter when he faced in May and Robbins opponents who were going to fold. Now Boris is calling his bluff he needs a way out. The writing it on the wall.
He can either be the fool who caused a no deal Brexit by insisting on a backstop designed to prevent it ... or he can be the statesman who found the last minute compromise and be a hero who avoided no deal. It's obvious which way he will go as much as people here flap about in denial.
Not only is it obvious but I suspect Merkel wouldn't have done this yesterday had Varadkar not already agreed it with her.
If No Deal is no problem, why would Varadkar destroy his political career by backing down?
No Deal is a problem, The Irish government accept that. It's not yet clear if it is a manageable one.
They also know it harms one country more than it harms Ireland.
I dont think thats what the projections are saying. Last ones I recall claimed Ireland would be hit harder than the UK. But since it's all made up bollocks atm I cant get excited either way. If it goes bad Varadkar wont last.
All Boris's Christmases come at once if Macron blocks any changes, leading to No Deal.....
Mandy Rice-Davies applies. Macron will sign up at the Council when everything is agreed, no sooner. Just as Macron was going to veto an extension in HYUFD's imagination because that was what was being reported, until he didn't. Macron isn't the key player here, Merkel and Varadkar are.
Boris needs to look into the whites of Varadkar's eyes, have him convinced that the backstop is dead, then offer a fig leaf for the EU to back down on so they can save face.
The Irish press is becoming increasingly worried about No Deal and their governments refusal to say what they are going to do about it.
Indeed and Merkel has just started a face saving manoeuvre to permit Varadkar to back down.
He was always bluffing it was obvious he was always bluffing but it didn't matter when he faced in May and Robbins opponents who were going to fold. Now Boris is calling his bluff he needs a way out. The writing it on the wall.
He can either be the fool who caused a no deal Brexit by insisting on a backstop designed to prevent it ... or he can be the statesman who found the last minute compromise and be a hero who avoided no deal. It's obvious which way he will go as much as people here flap about in denial.
Not only is it obvious but I suspect Merkel wouldn't have done this yesterday had Varadkar not already agreed it with her.
If No Deal is no problem, why would Varadkar destroy his political career by backing down?
No Deal is a problem, The Irish government accept that. It's not yet clear if it is a manageable one.
They also know it harms one country more than it harms Ireland.
I dont think thats what the projections are saying. Last ones I recall claimed Ireland would be hit harder than the UK. But since it's all made up bollocks atm I cant get excited either way. If it goes bad Varadkar wont last.
I've already agreed multiple bets on the subject. I am not a heavy gambler so would not like to bet more. This is already my biggest bet since the 2010 General Election.
That's fair enough. But to be clear, I think you're reading this completely wrong. Angela Merkel is politely brushing Boris Johnson off.
In a sense Macron is being a better "friend" to Britain by not letting tact get in the way of clarity. Mrs Merkel's tact has been grossly overanalysed.
I agree with that completely. The time for politeness is long past.
London is a positive thing. We’re lucky to have it. People need to accept that. There is a lot of them and us nonsense.
In my experience, planes and the location of airports have more impact on business decisions than trains. You need to be located within one hour direct of a decent international airport to thrive.
I count my blessings every day that we have London, what would I do with all the money if if it was not being siphoned off to London.
+1 As an example:-
Transport spending in London is £3,636 per person, compared with £519 in the North-East and £511 in Yorkshire, over the next 15 years.
Now equally I could annoy Malcolm and talk about how little the North gets compared to Scotland per capita but attacking London is very easy.
Eek, all part of the same game, at least the North can influence the spending , no matter who we vote for Scotland cannot change it. However your point is valid and the North should feel as aggrieved as Scotland.
In order to have money siphoned off to London, one would need to pay more than one received back. The siphoning takes place from, not to, London.
But that’s a circular argument - London brings in so much taxation because that’s where all the economic activity has been encourage to be. The question should be whether money is being optimally spent to deliver the widest benefit, including with an eye on inequalities.
It’s like those people who try to score a point because the rich pay carry a significant and rising proportion of the tax burden - because they account for a high and rising proportion of income.
A question about very low yields on long term government bonds.
Don't they mean that investors are unable to find other things they think will give a better long term yield ?
Which suggests that long term economic growth might not be as high it has been projected to be.
And if future long term growth is lower than it is projected to be doesn't that make it unlikely that future growth in transport requirements will be as high as it has been projected to be ?
I've already agreed multiple bets on the subject. I am not a heavy gambler so would not like to bet more. This is already my biggest bet since the 2010 General Election.
That's fair enough. But to be clear, I think you're reading this completely wrong. Angela Merkel is politely brushing Boris Johnson off.
In a sense Macron is being a better "friend" to Britain by not letting tact get in the way of clarity. Mrs Merkel's tact has been grossly overanalysed.
I agree with that completely. The time for politeness is long past.
But they know this is mostly a PR game of passing the blame parcel, and aren’t going to fall into Bozo’s hole marked “trap”.
So the backstop clause of the WA will be struck out before we leave on 31 October? That’s your prediction?
It will have legally bind changes before we leave yes. Maybe by 31 October maybe after a technical extension if we are close. I've already agreed multiple bets on this site to that effect most recently with Topping yesterday.
Didn't you learn your lesson after all your predictions of May getting the backstop removed proved false?
A question about very low yields on long term government bonds.
Don't they mean that investors are unable to find other things they think will give a better long term yield ?
Which suggests that long term economic growth might not be as high it has been projected to be.
And if future long term growth is lower than it is projected to be doesn't that make it unlikely that future growth in transport requirements will be as high as it has been projected to be ?
Despite ten years now of a hugely abnormal financial climate, most long term forecasts still have everything slowly returning toward what used to be called “normal”.
Yesterday's Yougov had the Tories ahead of both Labour and the LDs in London, the South, the Midlands and Wales and Scotland but Labour still ahead of the Tories in the North.
So the Midlands and Wales is probably the key target for the Tories rather than the North in terms of Labour marginal seats and based on Yougov they could even win back some Labour seats in London and the South they lost in 2017 too.
Plus while HS2 might bring benefits to the North there is little evidence of a huge wave of support for it especially given its cost
All Boris's Christmases come at once if Macron blocks any changes, leading to No Deal.....
Mandy Rice-Davies applies. Macron will sign up at the Council when everything is agreed, no sooner. Just as Macron was going to veto an extension in HYUFD's imagination because that was what was being reported, until he didn't. Macron isn't the key player here, Merkel and Varadkar are.
Boris needs to look into the whites of Varadkar's eyes, have him convinced that the backstop is dead, then offer a fig leaf for the EU to back down on so they can save face.
The Irish press is becoming increasingly worried about No Deal and their governments refusal to say what they are going to do about it.
Indeed and Merkel has just started a face saving manoeuvre to permit Varadkar to back down.
He was always bluffing it was obvious he was always bluffing but it didn't matter when he faced in May and Robbins opponents who were going to fold. Now Boris is calling his bluff he needs a way out. The writing it on the wall.
He can either be the fool who caused a no deal Brexit by insisting on a backstop designed to prevent it ... or he can be the statesman who found the last minute compromise and be a hero who avoided no deal. It's obvious which way he will go as much as people here flap about in denial.
Not only is it obvious but I suspect Merkel wouldn't have done this yesterday had Varadkar not already agreed it with her.
If No Deal is no problem, why would Varadkar destroy his political career by backing down?
Because his political career - and Ireland's economy - is destroyed by not backing down? It must be a tough call though....
He and Coveney will be looked ater with EU jobs or directorships. The rest of the island will just have to pick up the pieces.
I've already agreed multiple bets on the subject. I am not a heavy gambler so would not like to bet more. This is already my biggest bet since the 2010 General Election.
That's fair enough. But to be clear, I think you're reading this completely wrong. Angela Merkel is politely brushing Boris Johnson off.
In a sense Macron is being a better "friend" to Britain by not letting tact get in the way of clarity. Mrs Merkel's tact has been grossly overanalysed.
I agree with that completely. The time for politeness is long past.
Good cop, bad cop. Merkel the former, Macron the latter. It suits them both - temperamentally and politically.
Surely all Johnson needs to do is point out that the main beneficiary of HS2 would have been London and that money will be spent on other parts of the network instead - including much of the north.
Surely all Johnson needs to do is point out that the main beneficiary of HS2 would have been London and that money will be spent on other parts of the network instead - including much of the north.
All Boris's Christmases come at once if Macron blocks any changes, leading to No Deal.....
Mandy Rice-Davies applies. Macron will sign up at the Council when everything is agreed, no sooner. Just as Macron was going to veto an extension in HYUFD's imagination because that was what was being reported, until he didn't. Macron isn't the key player here, Merkel and Varadkar are.
Boris needs to look into the whites of Varadkar's eyes, have him convinced that the backstop is dead, then offer a fig leaf for the EU to back down on so they can save face.
The Irish press is becoming increasingly worried about No Deal and their governments refusal to say what they are going to do about it.
Indeed and Merkel has just started a face saving manoeuvre to permit Varadkar to back down.
He was always bluffing it was obvioin denial.
Not only is it obvious but I suspect Merkel wouldn't have done this yesterday had Varadkar not already agreed it with her.
If No Deal is no problem, why would Varadkar destroy his political career by backing down?
No Deal is a problem, The Irish government accept that. It's not yet clear if it is a manageable one.
They also know it harms one country more than it harms Ireland.
I dont think thats what the projections are saying. Last ones I recall claimed Ireland would be hit harder than the UK. But since it's all made up bollocks atm I cant get excited either way. If it goes bad Varadkar wont last.
Neither will Johnson.
Maybe yes maybe no. Johnson will be held to a GE and is positioning himself as such. It will all come down to how the UK electoral map has shifted and atm thats anyones guess.
Varadkar is only in power because his main opponents are giving him supply and confidence. If the time is right they can collapse the government and remove him from office. really he should have settled up last September, claimed victory and then won his GE. He has held on too long.
It is of course ironic that both RoI and Uk are led in effect by minority governments and PMs who havent been elected.
I've already agreed multiple bets on the subject. I am not a heavy gambler so would not like to bet more. This is already my biggest bet since the 2010 General Election.
That's fair enough. But to be clear, I think you're reading this completely wrong. Angela Merkel is politely brushing Boris Johnson off.
In a sense Macron is being a better "friend" to Britain by not letting tact get in the way of clarity. Mrs Merkel's tact has been grossly overanalysed.
I agree with that completely. The time for politeness is long past.
Ironic that politeness is touted as such an English virtue. Politesse anglaise stopped pining for the fjords and ceased to be some time ago.
Yesterday's Yougov had the Tories ahead of both Labour and the LDs in London, the South, the Midlands and Wales and Scotland but Labour still ahead of the Tories in the North.
So the Midlands and Wales is probably the key target for the Tories rather than the North in terms of Labour marginal seats and based on Yougov they could even win back some Labour seats in London and the South they lost in 2017 too.
Plus while HS2 might bring benefits to the North there is little evidence of a huge wave of support for it especially given its cost
You know much more than me about this. For me, the priority has to be to create new growth and the type of critical mass that allows London to thrive. The money pouring into London in tech (there was an article yesterday saying that the first 7 months of this year exceeded FDI for the whole of last year) goes there because of that critical mass of skills, opportunities, outstanding academic institutions and, of course, transport infrastructure which create opportunities for growth. That's great but we need to try to replicate it elsewhere.
Whilst transport is *a* key, I'd also argue that education is much more key for that. Cambridge's vibrant and world-beating tech sector grew up not because of proximity to London, but because of a university that created such opportunities by being forward-thinking.
Interestingly (and I don't say this snidely), Oxford hasn't had anywhere near the same success. It's not quite managed to grow the same sort of companies.
Improved transport links will help. But making universities growth incubators in their area might end up being much more rewarding, if chaotic.
Another issue is that London is voracious. It creates jobs, wealth and opportunities, but needs feeding in order to do so (e.g. Crossraial). Stop feeding it, and the whole country is negatively affected. It needs feeding *whilst* the above is done to help the north.
Cambridge always leaned toward science and Oxford toward the arts.
That's interesting, because although as far as I can judge Oxford's science courses are still very good, its humanities and languages courses are now if not mediocre at least underwhelming. Their history degree struggles to match the one on offer at Brookes, for example.
I would suggest that Bertram Russel (in showing the flaw in Frege's constuction of number, and as a result advancing the axiomatic definition of set theory, ie why 1+1=2) and Karl Popper (in formulating empirical science in terms of falsification) are good examples of advances in philosophy in the 20th century.
In the case of Popper the big advance about the problem of empiricism and induction was made by Hume. Personally agree that Popper is great, but lots of people disagree that he has solved the problem. Hume's advance involved genius, Popper's advance involved trying to manage the dilemma Hume stated into a scheme which saves science intellectually.
Frege's revision of logic remains an amazing achievement.
London is a positive thing. We’re lucky to have it. People need to accept that. There is a lot of them and us nonsense.
In my experience, planes and the location of airports have more impact on business decisions than trains. You need to be located within one hour direct of a decent international airport to thrive.
I count my blessings every day that we have London, what would I do with all the money if if it was not being siphoned off to London.
+1 As an example:-
Transport spending in London is £3,636 per person, compared with £519 in the North-East and £511 in Yorkshire, over the next 15 years.
Now equally I could annoy Malcolm and talk about how little the North gets compared to Scotland per capita but attacking London is very easy.
Eek, all part of the same game, at least the North can influence the spending , no matter who we vote for Scotland cannot change it. However your point is valid and the North should feel as aggrieved as Scotland.
In order to have money siphoned off to London, one would need to pay more than one received back. The siphoning takes place from, not to, London.
But that’s a circular argument - London brings in so much taxation because that’s where all the economic activity has been encourage to be. The question should be whether money is being optimally spent to deliver the widest benefit, including with an eye on inequalities.
It’s like those people who try to score a point because the rich pay carry a significant and rising proportion of the tax burden - because they account for a high and rising proportion of income.
That's a good point too though. In general, you should run your profits. No one ever remembers the second half of what Peter Mandelson said about the filthy rich. But it was the important bit.
This isn't just about London. Cambridge is being strangled by a lack of ability to expand. Improving the infrastructure around it (eg investing in the idea of a light rail to Haverhill) would be a very smart move.
Splurging money on infrastructure in areas without a broader plan of how that economy is going to benefit is a colossal waste of money.
Yesterday's Yougov had the Tories ahead of both Labour and the LDs in London, the South, the Midlands and Wales and Scotland but Labour still ahead of the Tories in the North.
So the Midlands is probably the key target for the Tories rather than the North in terms of Labour marginal seats and based on Yougov they could even win back some Labour seats in London and the South they lost in 2017 too.
Plus while HS2 might bring benefits to the North there is little evidence of a huge wave of support for it especially given its cost
I just don’t see HS2 being a huge issue anywhere beyond those places where the line is scheduled to run through. Even there, it’s only those directly affected who’ll care that much. And in the great scheme of things they’re small in number.
The Brexit Party has a 10 to 15% core vote regardless (5% to 10% even if No Deal) however if Boris got Brexit and the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop through the Brexit Party would still be well below the 20 to 25% it was when May extended, mainly to the Tories benefit
Instead of building a high speed line between Birmingham and Leeds via Toton, I would build a new line connection between the WCML north of Atherstone and the Burton to Leicester line at Moira. That line is no longer used and there isn't all that much traffic between Burton and Derby.
You could then run trains between Derby and Euston making use of the extra capacity on the WCML (once the Manchester bit of HS2 is done). This would give Burton direct trains to London and increase connectivity between stations on the WCML and Derby/Sheffield.
Either build HS2 or don't. @MalcolmG take on "Jobs for the boys" sounds wildly accurate. £7Bn spent already ? Who has this 7£Bn - as it is our, (taxpayers) money shouldn't we be able to see a breakdown... and what these companies have actually done for their wonga.
I've become ambivalent about HS2, I don't think the business case is there for it (Unlike LHR3 which needs to go ahead) and would rather the north was connected up with proper train links.
Also I'm not sure who lives in Birmingham with the intention of commuting to London, let alone further north :E !
That is to totally misunderstand the capaciy issues. This is not just about a fast service but provding the much needed extra capacity on the line for local, stopping and other serivces.
I haven't mentioned speed in my reply ? My main question is whats the 7 billion thus far gone on. I know where some of it has gone but I can't say it out loud on a public forum ;p
The Brexit Party has a 10 to 15% core vote regardless (5% to 10% even if No Deal) however if Boris got Brexit and the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop through the Brexit Party would still be well below the 20 to 25% it was when May extended, mainly to the Tories benefit
Attention would then move to 39 billion pounds and a transition period that Farage will cry sell out so it might not be quite as clear cut as you think. Anyone know how close the U.K. would have to follow EU laws during the transition eg Financial Transparency requirements.
We are ruled by public school journalist bullshitters, not engineers.
Rolls Royce was ruled by engineers - before it went bust. Nothing wrong with a bit of diversity......
It wasn't the engineers that sent RR under- it was the sales department that agreed a fixed price contract with Lockheed to develop the new RB-211 engine. After the bail-out in 1971, the RB-211 and then the next generation Trent went on to be massive best sellers- because the engineering was so good. :-)
So the backstop clause of the WA will be struck out before we leave on 31 October? That’s your prediction?
It will have legally bind changes before we leave yes. Maybe by 31 October maybe after a technical extension if we are close. I've already agreed multiple bets on this site to that effect most recently with Topping yesterday.
Didn't you learn your lesson after all your predictions of May getting the backstop removed proved false?
When did I predict May would get the backstop removed? I never liked May (though for non-Brexit reasons).
I originally said May would only get the backstop removed if she was serious about no deal which she clearly wasn't. So she would either need to get serious or be replaced by someone who would be. By the confidence vote I was already very clear May had failed, would never succeed and had to be replaced.
Given I thought May and her weakness was the problem how was I wrong?
I have to say I simply don’t understand how one railway line can cost £50 billion or whatever.
Nor do I understand why the papers today are presenting Boris’s visit yesterday as some great victory. All Merkel did was to say “Come up with an alternative that works.” If Boris had one he’d surely have told us. He doesn’t. He won’t. So on to no deal we go. Have I missed anything?
Well, yes. The fact that it has been even semi-acknowledged that the WA could be reopened.
It's now up to the UK and Irish Governments to create a joint solution.
Yesterday's Yougov had the Tories ahead of both Labour and the LDs in London, the South, the Midlands and Wales and Scotland but Labour still ahead of the Tories in the North.
So the Midlands and Wales is probably the key target for the Tories rather than the North in terms of Labour marginal seats and based on Yougov they could even win back some Labour seats in London and the South they lost in 2017 too.
Plus while HS2 might bring benefits to the North there is little evidence of a huge wave of support for it especially given its cost
Labour third in London is certainly a shock polling finding. But doesn’t that make you wonder about its veracity?
No, given the LDs beat Labour in London in the European Parliament elections and the poll figure was Tories 29%, LDs 28%, Labour 25% and London is full of Remainers moving from Labour to the LDs
Indeed, one of the problems with all this re-visiting of HS2 is that it delays breaking ground elsewhere & you have to keep employing a lot of the people on the project in the meantime which costs a fortune. Things are usually cheaper if you decide what you want to do & just get on with it - constantly second guessing yourself & never actually getting started (or worse: abandoning the work already done in order to do something different) is what leads to ludicrous overspend.
Instead of building a high speed line between Birmingham and Leeds via Toton, I would build a new line connection between the WCML north of Atherstone and the Burton to Leicester line at Moira. That line is no longer used and there isn't all that much traffic between Burton and Derby.
You could then run trains between Derby and Euston making use of the extra capacity on the WCML (once the Manchester bit of HS2 is done). This would give Burton direct trains to London and increase connectivity between stations on the WCML and Derby/Sheffield.
Interesting thought. I've travelled by road several times recently between the North West/ N Wales and Essex and my sat nav has taken me OFF the M6 at Stoke, and along the A50 to the M1. (And vice versa when going N) Quite light traffic in contrast to the log-jam which is the M6 south of Stoke to the M1, even allowing for the M6 Toll.
Either build HS2 or don't. @MalcolmG take on "Jobs for the boys" sounds wildly accurate. £7Bn spent already ? Who has this 7£Bn - as it is our, (taxpayers) money shouldn't we be able to see a breakdown... and what these companies have actually done for their wonga.
I've become ambivalent about HS2, I don't think the business case is there for it (Unlike LHR3 which needs to go ahead) and would rather the north was connected up with proper train links.
Also I'm not sure who lives in Birmingham with the intention of commuting to London, let alone further north :E !
Much of the £7bn "spent" already will be in the form of payments to acquire land and homes blighted by HS2. Much of that is capable of being recovered by selling back those assets.
Having read the full terms of reference of the HS2 review, I have come around to the view that the review is indeed a window dressing exercise designed to park the issue for the duration of the Autumn general election campaign and then give the green light to proceed, although possibly reducing the project to a new London-Birmingham link. The panel is on record as having in general given strong support to the project with few exceptions and would have a vast amount of humble pie to swallow. It is not "independent" in any meaningful form. For example appointing the likes of Andy Street is like appointing Leo Varadkhar to a panel overseeing an independent review of the Brexit backstop. Crucially, the terms of reference of the project do not allow for any comparison with the cost-benefits of the myriad of alternative transport and other capital projects that could be financed across the North and Midlands using the vast share of public funding that HS2 will consume.
Yesterday's Yougov had the Tories ahead of both Labour and the LDs in London, the South, the Midlands and Wales and Scotland but Labour still ahead of the Tories in the North.
So the Midlands is probably the key target for the Tories rather than the North in terms of Labour marginal seats and based on Yougov they could even win back some Labour seats in London and the South they lost in 2017 too.
Plus while HS2 might bring benefits to the North there is little evidence of a huge wave of support for it especially given its cost
I just don’t see HS2 being a huge issue anywhere beyond those places where the line is scheduled to run through. Even there, it’s only those directly affected who’ll care that much. And in the great scheme of things they’re small in number.
Either build HS2 or don't. @MalcolmG take on "Jobs for the boys" sounds wildly accurate. £7Bn spent already ? Who has this 7£Bn - as it is our, (taxpayers) money shouldn't we be able to see a breakdown... and what these companies have actually done for their wonga.
I've become ambivalent about HS2, I don't think the business case is there for it (Unlike LHR3 which needs to go ahead) and would rather the north was connected up with proper train links.
Also I'm not sure who lives in Birmingham with the intention of commuting to London, let alone further north :E !
That is to totally misunderstand the capaciy issues. This is not just about a fast service but provding the much needed extra capacity on the line for local, stopping and other serivces.
I'd agree that the biggest problem with HS2 is that it has been mis-sold. However for most people their major concern is their local commute not getting to London faster. And the initial plan was London to Birmingham. When was the north actually going to see some benefit from it?
I live in a Tory seat which, like most other Tory seats for at least 50 miles in every direction, is seriously likely to go LD in any election in the next six months. Roughly half the Tory voters for 50 miles around will be adversely affected by HS2, none will gain any benefit from it and only virtue-signalling Greens (who vote Green anyway) will be concerned if it's scrapped.
My family (who all vote LD or Labour) lives on or around Merseyside, some in LD target seats, or at least seats the LDs might realistically aspire to win. A few in the political bubble might be miffed in HS2's scrapped: most will be pleased yet another London-centric boondoggle's been junked.
Personally, I find no difficulty getting to the NW by train, and I've yet to meet anyone in the SE who has. But I've yet to meet anyone who thinks even the current system offers value for money, or who thinks HS2 will avoid pushing prices up still further.
This is the first initiative from Johnson that appeals to all the potential LD conversts I socialise with. Dismiss them as NIMBYs if you want: but don't delude yourselves real voters want a new motorway-scale railway line on an Apollo Moonshot-scale budget.
If Farage thinks that "lack of a trade deal with Donald Trump" is his best line of attack to claim betrayal on Brexit, he's losing. This is good news. No one cares, especially given the message seems to be already getting through that any trade threatens the NHS.
The Brexit Party has a 10 to 15% core vote regardless (5% to 10% even if No Deal) however if Boris got Brexit and the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop through the Brexit Party would still be well below the 20 to 25% it was when May extended, mainly to the Tories benefit
Attention would then move to 39 billion pounds and a transition period that Farage will cry sell out so it might not be quite as clear cut as you think. Anyone know how close the U.K. would have to follow EU laws during the transition eg Financial Transparency requirements.
Which is why I said the Brexit Party would still get 10 to 15% even if the Withdrawal Agreement minus backstop was agreed and passed.
However UKIP got 12% in 2015 and the Tories still won a majority with a few working class Labour voters voting UKIP as they will also vote Brexit Party
What is it with the UK and major infrastructure projects?
NIMBYism, and even worse BANANAs (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything), cheered on by the sort of miserable old sods who boast about never having used a bus or train.
If Farage thinks that "lack of a trade deal with Donald Trump" is his best line of attack to claim betrayal on Brexit, he's losing. This is good news. No one cares, especially given the message seems to be already getting through that any trade threatens the NHS.
Weren't Farage's UKIP and Leave.EU strongly opposed to the proposed TPP agreement between the USA and EU?
Either build HS2 or don't. @MalcolmG take on "Jobs for the boys" sounds wildly accurate. £7Bn spent already ? Who has this 7£Bn - as it is our, (taxpayers) money shouldn't we be able to see a breakdown... and what these companies have actually done for their wonga.
I've become ambivalent about HS2, I don't think the business case is there for it (Unlike LHR3 which needs to go ahead) and would rather the north was connected up with proper train links.
Also I'm not sure who lives in Birmingham with the intention of commuting to London, let alone further north :E !
That is to totally misunderstand the capaciy issues. This is not just about a fast service but provding the much needed extra capacity on the line for local, stopping and other serivces.
I'd agree that the biggest problem with HS2 is that it has been mis-sold. However for most people their major concern is their local commute not getting to London faster. And the initial plan was London to Birmingham. When was the north actually going to see some benefit from it?
One of the major benefits of HS2 is that is will vastly increase capacity on the existing mainlines for commuter traffic - currently large gaps have to be allocated on the main line between local trains to allow time & space for the fast inter-cities to get through. Move the inter-city trains to HS2 and you can fit a great pile of local commuter trains into those slots.
Everyone benefits from HS2. The problem HS2 has is a PR one - it has always been talked about as if it was a George Osbourne vanity project. "Who really needs to get to London 10 minutes quicker?" etc etc. But getting to London 10 minutes quicker is a side benefit - the main purpose of HS2 is capacity.
(Having a second north-south mainline also lets you do things like close one of them for upgrades / maintenance at quiet times & not drastically effect services - something that really isn’t possible at the moment.)
You know much more than me about this. For me, the priority has to be to create new growth and the type of critical mass that allows London to thrive. The money pouring into London in tech (there was an article yesterday saying that the first 7 months of this year exceeded FDI for the whole of last year) goes there because of that critical mass of skills, opportunities, outstanding academic institutions and, of course, transport infrastructure which create opportunities for growth. That's great but we need to try to replicate it elsewhere.
Cambridge always leaned toward science and Oxford toward the arts.
That's interesting, because although as far as I can judge Oxford's science courses are still very good, its humanities and languages courses are now if not mediocre at least underwhelming. Their history degree struggles to match the one on offer at Brookes, for example.
Cambridge, by contrast, is by any measure an outstanding university for History.
Many years ago it was pointed out that most of our professors of philosophy came from Oxford, despite the main advances in the field having been made at Cambridge.
Angels fear to tread here, but I suggest 'advances' in philosophy are pretty rare. I wonder if the last ones were Kant 1781 and Frege 1879. (Neither were at Cambridge!)
I would suggest that Bertram Russel (in showing the flaw in Frege's constuction of number, and as a result advancing the axiomatic definition of set theory, ie why 1+1=2) and Karl Popper (in formulating empirical science in terms of falsification) are good examples of advances in philosophy in the 20th century.
How about Godel who showed that Russell had been wasting his time, and Wittgenstein who in PI showed that all philosophers had been wasting their time.
But most influential of all is Marx (the point is not to explain the world but to change the world). His philosophy has had an impact on hundreds of millions, exceeded in impact only by Jesus Christ and Mohammed.
What great benefits could we accrue from a trade deal with the United States?
It is all absolutely ludicrous. We have decades old trading links with close european neighbours and very good free trade terms with them. Dover etc sees huge in and out flows.
Why is all that so terrible and yet some mythical yet-to-happen trade link to US, presumably a lot by air suddenly the solution to all our problems?
It is just certain politicians and their obsession with the US.
Instead of building a high speed line between Birmingham and Leeds via Toton, I would build a new line connection between the WCML north of Atherstone and the Burton to Leicester line at Moira. That line is no longer used and there isn't all that much traffic between Burton and Derby.
You could then run trains between Derby and Euston making use of the extra capacity on the WCML (once the Manchester bit of HS2 is done). This would give Burton direct trains to London and increase connectivity between stations on the WCML and Derby/Sheffield.
Interesting thought. I've travelled by road several times recently between the North West/ N Wales and Essex and my sat nav has taken me OFF the M6 at Stoke, and along the A50 to the M1. (And vice versa when going N) Quite light traffic in contrast to the log-jam which is the M6 south of Stoke to the M1, even allowing for the M6 Toll.
When it comes votes one has to recall that the UK mostly travels by car. Huge numbers of people never travel by train. The further north you go the more it is true.
You know much more than me about this. For me, the priority has to be to create new growth and the type of critical mass that allows London to thrive. The money pouring into London in tech (there was an article yesterday saying that the first 7 months of this year exceeded FDI for the whole of last year) goes there because of that critical mass of skills, opportunities, outstanding academic institutions and, of course, transport infrastructure which create opportunities for growth. That's great but we need to try to replicate it elsewhere.
Cambridge always leaned toward science and Oxford toward the arts.
That's interesting, because although as far as I can judge Oxford's science courses are still very good, its humanities and languages courses are now if not mediocre at least underwhelming. Their history degree struggles to match the one on offer at Brookes, for example.
Cambridge, by contrast, is by any measure an outstanding university for History.
Many years ago it was pointed out that most of our professors of philosophy came from Oxford, despite the main advances in the field having been made at Cambridge.
Angels fear to tread here, but I suggest 'advances' in philosophy are pretty rare. I wonder if the last ones were Kant 1781 and Frege 1879. (Neither were at Cambridge!)
I would suggest that Bertram Russel (in showing the flaw in Frege's constuction of number, and as a result advancing the axiomatic definition of set theory, ie why 1+1=2) and Karl Popper (in formulating empirical science in terms of falsification) are good examples of advances in philosophy in the 20th century.
How about Godel who showed that Russell had been wasting his time, and Wittgenstein who in PI showed that all philosophers had been wasting their time.
But most influential of all is Marx (the point is not to explain the world but to change the world). His philosophy has had an impact on hundreds of millions, exceeded in impact only by Jesus Christ and Mohammed.
What great benefits could we accrue from a trade deal with the United States?
It is all absolutely ludicrous. We have decades old trading links with close european neighbours and very good free trade terms with them. Dover etc sees huge in and out flows.
I live in a Tory seat which, like most other Tory seats for at least 50 miles in every direction, is seriously likely to go LD in any election in the next six months. Roughly half the Tory voters for 50 miles around will be adversely affected by HS2, none will gain any benefit from it and only virtue-signalling Greens (who vote Green anyway) will be concerned if it's scrapped.
My family (who all vote LD or Labour) lives on or around Merseyside, some in LD target seats, or at least seats the LDs might realistically aspire to win. A few in the political bubble might be miffed in HS2's scrapped: most will be pleased yet another London-centric boondoggle's been junked.
Personally, I find no difficulty getting to the NW by train, and I've yet to meet anyone in the SE who has. But I've yet to meet anyone who thinks even the current system offers value for money, or who thinks HS2 will avoid pushing prices up still further.
This is the first initiative from Johnson that appeals to all the potential LD conversts I socialise with. Dismiss them as NIMBYs if you want: but don't delude yourselves real voters want a new motorway-scale railway line on an Apollo Moonshot-scale budget.
I think the thread (written from Bedford) totally misreads the mood in the Midlands and the North, which is already documented in published polls. People do care about the public finances but they do also want public sector investment of good value that improves things they care about. After years of austerity, manifest in the visible deterioration in the public realm in our cities, what they don't want is to totally commit the future limited capacity for public sector funded investment on something which provides nil value to them.
Either build HS2 or don't. @MalcolmG take on "Jobs for the boys" sounds wildly accurate. £7Bn spent already ? Who has this 7£Bn - as it is our, (taxpayers) money shouldn't we be able to see a breakdown... and what these companies have actually done for their wonga.
I've become ambivalent about HS2, I don't think the business case is there for it (Unlike LHR3 which needs to go ahead) and would rather the north was connected up with proper train links.
Also I'm not sure who lives in Birmingham with the intention of commuting to London, let alone further north :E !
That is to totally misunderstand the capaciy issues. This is not just about a fast service but provding the much needed extra capacity on the line for local, stopping and other serivces.
That will help make it High speed having lots of slow local trains chugging up and down it. Bit like buying a Ferrari to go shopping at Tesco.
The High Speed Trains will be on the High Speed Line
The Local/Commuting Trains will be on the current line.
No wonder GERS confuses you.
You really are an arsehole. Did you read Mike's post to which I replied or were you too desperate to get your" I hate Scotland" dig in. Just so you can get a non addled adult to read it to you I repeat it below. Do you see him mention two lines smartarse.
"This is not just about a fast service but provding the much needed extra capacity on the line for local, stopping and other serivces. "
A question about very low yields on long term government bonds.
Don't they mean that investors are unable to find other things they think will give a better long term yield ?
Which suggests that long term economic growth might not be as high it has been projected to be.
And if future long term growth is lower than it is projected to be doesn't that make it unlikely that future growth in transport requirements will be as high as it has been projected to be ?
Interesting question but I would say not. The very low yield on government bonds is being driven by demographics (more pensions in payment backed by annuities or bonds), by the overreaction to the GFC shown by the Basel system which forces banks to keep capital in "secure" assets, and by the surplus saving being generated by countries like China with massive trade surpluses to recycle. Of course there is a bit of fear too but a short term recession (which is likely) doesn't tell us a lot about growth and demand over the longer term, at least in my view.
London is a positive thing. We’re lucky to have it. People need to accept that. There is a lot of them and us nonsense.
In my experience, planes and the location of airports have more impact on business decisions than trains. You need to be located within one hour direct of a decent international airport to thrive.
I count my blessings every day that we have London, what would I do with all the money if if it was not being siphoned off to London.
+1 As an example:-
Transport spending in London is £3,636 per person, compared with £519 in the North-East and £511 in Yorkshire, over the next 15 years.
Now equally I could annoy Malcolm and talk about how little the North gets compared to Scotland per capita but attacking London is very easy.
Eek, all part of the same game, at least the North can influence the spending , no matter who we vote for Scotland cannot change it. However your point is valid and the North should feel as aggrieved as Scotland.
In order to have money siphoned off to London, one would need to pay more than one received back. The siphoning takes place from, not to, London.
Instead of building a high speed line between Birmingham and Leeds via Toton, I would build a new line connection between the WCML north of Atherstone and the Burton to Leicester line at Moira. That line is no longer used and there isn't all that much traffic between Burton and Derby.
You could then run trains between Derby and Euston making use of the extra capacity on the WCML (once the Manchester bit of HS2 is done). This would give Burton direct trains to London and increase connectivity between stations on the WCML and Derby/Sheffield.
Interesting thought. I've travelled by road several times recently between the North West/ N Wales and Essex and my sat nav has taken me OFF the M6 at Stoke, and along the A50 to the M1. (And vice versa when going N) Quite light traffic in contrast to the log-jam which is the M6 south of Stoke to the M1, even allowing for the M6 Toll.
When it comes votes one has to recall that the UK mostly travels by car. Huge numbers of people never travel by train. The further north you go the more it is true.
Precisely.
The idea that not addressing "capacity issues" by building a new line between Birmingham and London is going to be a great vote-loser in the North is an odd piece of logic to begin with.
I wonder if the government committed £90bn or whatever this is going to end up as to improvements or new versions for extra capacity for the M6, the M62, the M56 etc what we could see for that.
I bet that would have just as much NIMBYism but probably improve the lives of more voters in the North than a new line addressing capacity issues primarily between Birmingham and London does.
Instead of building a high speed line between Birmingham and Leeds via Toton, I would build a new line connection between the WCML north of Atherstone and the Burton to Leicester line at Moira. That line is no longer used and there isn't all that much traffic between Burton and Derby.
You could then run trains between Derby and Euston making use of the extra capacity on the WCML (once the Manchester bit of HS2 is done). This would give Burton direct trains to London and increase connectivity between stations on the WCML and Derby/Sheffield.
Interesting thought. I've travelled by road several times recently between the North West/ N Wales and Essex and my sat nav has taken me OFF the M6 at Stoke, and along the A50 to the M1. (And vice versa when going N) Quite light traffic in contrast to the log-jam which is the M6 south of Stoke to the M1, even allowing for the M6 Toll.
When it comes votes one has to recall that the UK mostly travels by car. Huge numbers of people never travel by train. The further north you go the more it is true.
Yes. Why did I and mine travel by car? First of all, to get to Keswick, in the Lake District from where I live it means a trip to, and across London and several changes. To get to N Wales is equally complex, as is from Keswick to Anglesey.
You know much more than me about this. For me, the priority has to be to create new growth and the type of critical mass that allows London to thrive. The money pouring into London in tech (there was an article yesterday saying that the first 7 months of this year exceeded FDI for the whole of last year) goes there because of that critical mass of skills, opportunities, outstanding academic institutions and, of course, transport infrastructure which create opportunities for growth. That's great but we need to try to replicate it elsewhere.
Cambridge always leaned toward science and Oxford toward the arts.
That's interesting, because although as far as I can judge Oxford's science courses are still very good, its humanities and languages courses are now if not mediocre at least underwhelming. Their history degree struggles to match the one on offer at Brookes, for example.
Cambridge, by contrast, is by any measure an outstanding university for History.
Many years ago it was pointed out that most of our professors of philosophy came from Oxford, despite the main advances in the field having been made at Cambridge.
Angels fear to tread here, but I suggest 'advances' in philosophy are pretty rare. I wonder if the last ones were Kant 1781 and Frege 1879. (Neither were at Cambridge!)
I would suggest that Bertram Russel (in showing the flaw in Frege's constuction of number, and as a result advancing the axiomatic definition of set theory, ie why 1+1=2) and Karl Popper (in formulating empirical science in terms of falsification) are good examples of advances in philosophy in the 20th century.
How about Godel who showed that Russell had been wasting his time, and Wittgenstein who in PI showed that all philosophers had been wasting their time.
But most influential of all is Marx (the point is not to explain the world but to change the world). His philosophy has had an impact on hundreds of millions, exceeded in impact only by Jesus Christ and Mohammed.
Buddha?
2.2b Christians, 1.8b Islam, 0.5b Buddhists. More than 1.0b impacted by Marxism (China, Russia ..)
You know much more than me about this. For me, the priority has to be to create new growth and the type of critical mass that allows London to thrive. The money pouring into London in tech (there was an article yesterday saying that the first 7 months of this year exceeded FDI for the whole of last year) goes there because of that critical mass of skills, opportunities, outstanding academic institutions and, of course, transport infrastructure which create opportunities for growth. That's great but we need to try to replicate it elsewhere.
Cambridge always leaned toward science and Oxford toward the arts.
That's interesting, because although as far as I can judge Oxford's science courses are still very good, its humanities and languages courses are now if not mediocre at least underwhelming. Their history degree struggles to match the one on offer at Brookes, for example.
Cambridge, by contrast, is by any measure an outstanding university for History.
Many years ago it was pointed out that most of our professors of philosophy came from Oxford, despite the main advances in the field having been made at Cambridge.
Angels fear to tread here, but I suggest 'advances' in philosophy are pretty rare. I wonder if the last ones were Kant 1781 and Frege 1879. (Neither were at Cambridge!)
I would suggest that Bertram Russel (in showing the flaw in Frege's constuction of number, and as a result advancing the axiomatic definition of set theory, ie why 1+1=2) and Karl Popper (in formulating empirical science in terms of falsification) are good examples of advances in philosophy in the 20th century.
How about Godel who showed that Russell had been wasting his time, and Wittgenstein who in PI showed that all philosophers had been wasting their time.
But most influential of all is Marx (the point is not to explain the world but to change the world). His philosophy has had an impact on hundreds of millions, exceeded in impact only by Jesus Christ and Mohammed.
Indeed. Hundreds of millions impoverished and tens of millions dead because of his philosophy.
You know much more than me about this. For me, the priority has to be to create new growth and the type of critical mass that allows London to thrive. The money pouring into London in tech (there was an article yesterday saying that the first 7 months of this year exceeded FDI for the whole of last year) goes there because of that critical mass of skills, opportunities, outstanding academic institutions and, of course, transport infrastructure which create opportunities for growth. That's great but we need to try to replicate it elsewhere.
Cambridge always leaned toward science and Oxford toward the arts.
That's interesting, because although as far as I can judge Oxford's science courses are still very good, its humanities and languages courses are now if not mediocre at least underwhelming. Their history degree struggles to match the one on offer at Brookes, for example.
Cambridge, by contrast, is by any measure an outstanding university for History.
Many years ago it was pointed out that most of our professors of philosophy came from Oxford, despite the main advances in the field having been made at Cambridge.
Angels fear to tread here, but I suggest 'advances' in philosophy are pretty rare. I wonder if the last ones were Kant 1781 and Frege 1879. (Neither were at Cambridge!)
I would suggest that Bertram Russel (in showing the flaw in Frege's constuction of number, and as a result advancing the axiomatic definition of set theory, ie why 1+1=2) and Karl Popper (in formulating empirical science in terms of falsification) are good examples of advances in philosophy in the 20th century.
How about Godel who showed that Russell had been wasting his time, and Wittgenstein who in PI showed that all philosophers had been wasting their time.
But most influential of all is Marx (the point is not to explain the world but to change the world). His philosophy has had an impact on hundreds of millions, exceeded in impact only by Jesus Christ and Mohammed.
Indeed. Hundreds of millions impoverished and tens of millions dead because of his philosophy.
"tens of millions dead"? I think that you grossly underestimate his achievements. Dangerous stuff, philosophy.
You know much more than me about this. For me, the priority has to be to create new growth and the type of critical mass that allows London to thrive. The money pouring into London in tech (there was an article yesterday saying that the first 7 months of this year exceeded FDI for the whole of last year) goes there because of that critical mass of skills, opportunities, outstanding academic institutions and, of course, transport infrastructure which create opportunities for growth. That's great but we need to try to replicate it elsewhere.
Cambridge always leaned toward science and Oxford toward the arts.
That's interesting, because although as far as I can judge Oxford's science courses are still very good, its humanities and languages courses are now if not mediocre at least underwhelming. Their history degree struggles to match the one on offer at Brookes, for example.
Cambridge, by contrast, is by any measure an outstanding university for History.
Many years ago it was pointed out that most of our professors of philosophy came from Oxford, despite the main advances in the field having been made at Cambridge.
Angels fear to tread here, but I suggest 'advances' in philosophy are pretty rare. I wonder if the last ones were Kant 1781 and Frege 1879. (Neither were at Cambridge!)
I would suggest that Bertram Russel (in showing the flaw in Frege's constuction of number, and as a result advancing the axiomatic definition of set theory, ie why 1+1=2) and Karl Popper (in formulating empirical science in terms of falsification) are good examples of advances in philosophy in the 20th century.
How about Godel who showed that Russell had been wasting his time, and Wittgenstein who in PI showed that all philosophers had been wasting their time.
But most influential of all is Marx (the point is not to explain the world but to change the world). His philosophy has had an impact on hundreds of millions, exceeded in impact only by Jesus Christ and Mohammed.
Indeed. Hundreds of millions impoverished and tens of millions dead because of his philosophy.
Funny how those who espouse personal & individual responsibility for actions obsessively blame Marx for events long after his death.
What great benefits could we accrue from a trade deal with the United States?
It is all absolutely ludicrous. We have decades old trading links with close european neighbours and very good free trade terms with them. Dover etc sees huge in and out flows.
You know much more than me about this. For me, the priority has to be to create new growth and the type of critical mass that allows London to thrive. The money pouring into London in tech (there was an article yesterday saying that the first 7 months of this year exceeded FDI for the whole of last year) goes there because of that critical mass of skills, opportunities, outstanding academic institutions and, of course, transport infrastructure which create opportunities for growth. That's great but we need to try to replicate it elsewhere.
Cambridge always leaned toward science and Oxford toward the arts.
That's interesting, because although as far as I can judge Oxford's science courses are still very good, its humanities and languages courses are now if not mediocre at least underwhelming. Their history degree struggles to match the one on offer at Brookes, for example.
Cambridge, by contrast, is by any measure an outstanding university for History.
Many years ago it was pointed out that most of our professors of philosophy came from Oxford, despite the main advances in the field having been made at Cambridge.
Angels fear to tread here, but I suggest 'advances' in philosophy are pretty rare. I wonder if the last ones were Kant 1781 and Frege 1879. (Neither were at Cambridge!)
I would suggest that Bertram Russel (in showing the flaw in Frege's constuction of number, and as a result advancing the axiomatic definition of set theory, ie why 1+1=2) and Karl Popper (in formulating empirical science in terms of falsification) are good examples of advances in philosophy in the 20th century.
How about Godel who showed that Russell had been wasting his time, and Wittgenstein who in PI showed that all philosophers had been wasting their time.
But most influential of all is Marx (the point is not to explain the world but to change the world). His philosophy has had an impact on hundreds of millions, exceeded in impact only by Jesus Christ and Mohammed.
Indeed. Hundreds of millions impoverished and tens of millions dead because of his philosophy.
Marxist China is doing quite well in creating wealth and building infrastructure (on topic).
Either build HS2 or don't. @MalcolmG take on "Jobs for the boys" sounds wildly accurate. £7Bn spent already ? Who has this 7£Bn - as it is our, (taxpayers) money shouldn't we be able to see a breakdown... and what these companies have actually done for their wonga.
I've become ambivalent about HS2, I don't think the business case is there for it (Unlike LHR3 which needs to go ahead) and would rather the north was connected up with proper train links.
Also I'm not sure who lives in Birmingham with the intention of commuting to London, let alone further north :E !
That is to totally misunderstand the capaciy issues. This is not just about a fast service but provding the much needed extra capacity on the line for local, stopping and other serivces.
That will help make it High speed having lots of slow local trains chugging up and down it. Bit like buying a Ferrari to go shopping at Tesco.
The High Speed Trains will be on the High Speed Line
The Local/Commuting Trains will be on the current line.
No wonder GERS confuses you.
You really are an arsehole. Did you read Mike's post to which I replied or were you too desperate to get your" I hate Scotland" dig in. Just so you can get a non addled adult to read it to you I repeat it below. Do you see him mention two lines smartarse.
"This is not just about a fast service but provding the much needed extra capacity on the line for local, stopping and other serivces. "
Tbf I think you misunderstood Mike's original point Malcolm... HS2 will provide capacity for fast trains, thus removing fast trains from the existing lines, thus giving more capacity for slow & commuter trains on the existing lines.
London is a positive thing. We’re lucky to have it. People need to accept that. There is a lot of them and us nonsense.
In my experience, planes and the location of airports have more impact on business decisions than trains. You need to be located within one hour direct of a decent international airport to thrive.
I count my blessings every day that we have London, what would I do with all the money if if it was not being siphoned off to London.
+1 As an example:-
Transport spending in London is £3,636 per person, compared with £519 in the North-East and £511 in Yorkshire, over the next 15 years.
Now equally I could annoy Malcolm and talk about how little the North gets compared to Scotland per capita but attacking London is very easy.
Eek, all part of the same game, at least the North can influence the spending , no matter who we vote for Scotland cannot change it. However your point is valid and the North should feel as aggrieved as Scotland.
In order to have money siphoned off to London, one would need to pay more than one received back. The siphoning takes place from, not to, London.
Continuously quoting bent numbers does you no favours you halfwit.
Don't begrudge the Yoons their St Ger's Day. They think that trumpeting 312 years of fiscal and economic stewardship by UK governments has reduced Scotland to a basket case (not to mention Wales, NI & most English regions) is a killer point. Let's not interrupt them.
Oh and I can see why everyone in the south gets the train everywhere when I went to France last year (via the M25). I thought sunday evening would be a quiet time to cart round it. Apparently not !
You know much more than me about this. For me, the priority has to be to create new growth and the type of critical mass that allows London to thrive. The money pouring into London in tech (there was an article yesterday saying that the first 7 months of this year exceeded FDI for the whole of last year) goes there because of that critical mass of skills, opportunities, outstanding academic institutions and, of course, transport infrastructure which create opportunities for growth. That's great but we need to try to replicate it elsewhere.
Cambridge always struggles to match the one on offer at Brookes, for example.
Cambridge, by contrast, is by any measure an outstanding university for History.
Many years ago it was pointed out that most of our professors of philosophy came from Oxford, despite the main advances in the field having been made at Cambridge.
Angels fear to tread here, but I suggest 'advances' in philosophy are pretty rare. I wonder if the last ones were Kant 1781 and Frege 1879. (Neither were at Cambridge!)
I would suggest that Bertram Russel (in showing the flaw in Frege's constuction of number, and as a result advancing the axiomatic definition of set theory, ie why 1+1=2) and Karl Popper (in formulating empirical science in terms of falsification) are good examples of advances in philosophy in the 20th century.
How about Godel who showed that Russell had been wasting his time, and Wittgenstein who in PI showed that all philosophers had been wasting their time.
But most influential of all is Marx (the point is not to explain the world but to change the world). His philosophy has had an impact on hundreds of millions, exceeded in impact only by Jesus Christ and Mohammed.
Indeed. Hundreds of millions impoverished and tens of millions dead because of his philosophy.
Funny how those who espouse personal & individual responsibility for actions obsessively blame Marx for events long after his death.
Blaming Marx for the depravities of Stalin and Mao is like blaming Jesus for European mass-murder and genocide in the Americas, Africa, Asia and Australia. Those who commit crimes against humanity are responsible for them. No-one else.
I have to say I simply don’t understand how one railway line can cost £50 billion or whatever.
Nor do I understand why the papers today are presenting Boris’s visit yesterday as some great victory. All Merkel did was to say “Come up with an alternative that works.” If Boris had one he’d surely have told us. He doesn’t. He won’t. So on to no deal we go. Have I missed anything?
Well, yes. The fact that it has been even semi-acknowledged that the WA could be reopened.
It's now up to the UK and Irish Governments to create a joint solution.
What great benefits could we accrue from a trade deal with the United States?
The destruction of our agricultural sector (what’s left of it after a No Deal Brexit), the importation of food made with lower hygiene standards and the NHS having to pay far far more for medicines.
Not saying that these are benefits, mind, not for the UK anyway but it’s why the US is so keen on one.
You know much more than me about this. For me, the priority has to be to create new growth and the type of critical mass that allows London to thrive. The money pouring into London in tech (there was an article yesterday saying that the first 7 months of this year exceeded FDI for the whole of last year) goes there because of that critical mass of skills, opportunities, outstanding academic institutions and, of course, transport infrastructure which create opportunities for growth. That's great but we need to try to replicate it elsewhere.
Cambridge always leaned toward science and Oxford toward the arts.
That's interesting, because although as far as I can judge Oxford's science courses are still very good, its humanities and languages courses are now if not mediocre at least underwhelming. Their history degree struggles to match the one on offer at Brookes, for example.
Cambridge, by contrast, is by any measure an outstanding university for History.
Many years ago it was pointed out that most of our professors of philosophy came from Oxford, despite the main advances in the field having been made at Cambridge.
Angels fear to tread here, but I suggest 'advances' in philosophy are pretty rare. I wonder if the last ones were Kant 1781 and Frege 1879. (Neither were at Cambridge!)
I would suggest that Bertram Russel (in showing the flaw in Frege's constuction of number, and as a result advancing the axiomatic definition of set theory, ie why 1+1=2) and Karl Popper (in formulating empirical science in terms of falsification) are good examples of advances in philosophy in the 20th century.
How about Godel who showed that Russell had been wasting his time, and Wittgenstein who in PI showed that all philosophers had been wasting their time.
But most influential of all is Marx (the point is not to explain the world but to change the world). His philosophy has had an impact on hundreds of millions, exceeded in impact only by Jesus Christ and Mohammed.
Indeed. Hundreds of millions impoverished and tens of millions dead because of his philosophy.
Marx has been used as an excuse for dictatorship, as has Christ tbf. I suspect neither of them would have condoned that outcome.
You know much more than me about this. For me, the priority has to be to create new growth and the type of critical mass that allows London to thrive. The money pouring into London in tech (there was an article yesterday saying that the first 7 months of this year exceeded FDI for the whole of last year) goes there because of that critical mass of skills, opportunities, outstanding academic institutions and, of course, transport infrastructure which create opportunities for growth. That's great but we need to try to replicate it elsewhere.
Cambridge always leaned toward science and Oxford toward the arts.
That's interesting, because although as far as I can judge Oxford's science courses are still very good, its humanities and languages courses are now if not mediocre at least underwhelming. Their history degree struggles to match the one on offer at Brookes, for example.
Cambridge, by contrast, is by any measure an outstanding university for History.
Many years ago it was pointed out that most of our professors of philosophy came from Oxford, despite the main advances in the field having been made at Cambridge.
Angels fear to tread here, but I suggest 'advances' in philosophy are pretty rare. I wonder if the last ones were Kant 1781 and Frege 1879. (Neither were at Cambridge!)
I would suggest that Bertram Russel (in showing the flaw in Frege's constuction of number, and as a result advancing the axiomatic definition of set theory, ie why 1+1=2) and Karl Popper (in formulating empirical science in terms of falsification) are good examples of advances in philosophy in the 20th century.
How about Godel who showed that Russell had been wasting his time, and Wittgenstein who in PI showed that all philosophers had been wasting their time.
But most influential of all is Marx (the point is not to explain the world but to change the world). His philosophy has had an impact on hundreds of millions, exceeded in impact only by Jesus Christ and Mohammed.
Indeed. Hundreds of millions impoverished and tens of millions dead because of his philosophy.
Marxist China is doing quite well in creating wealth and building infrastructure (on topic).
Have you been to China? It’s some distance from utopia.
You know much more than me about this. For me, the priority has to be to create new growth and the type of critical mass that allows London to thrive. The money pouring into London in tech (there was an article yesterday saying that the first 7 months of this year exceeded FDI for the whole of last year) goes there because of that critical mass of skills, opportunities, outstanding academic institutions and, of course, transport infrastructure which create opportunities for growth. That's great but we need to try to replicate it elsewhere.
Cambridge always leaned toward science and Oxford toward the arts.
That's interesting, because although as far as I can judge Oxford's science courses are still very good, its humanities and languages courses are now if not mediocre at least underwhelming. Their history degree struggles to match the one on offer at Brookes, for example.
Cambridge, by contrast, is by any measure an outstanding university for History.
Many years ago it was pointed out that most of our professors of philosophy came from Oxford, despite the main advances in the field having been made at Cambridge.
Angels fear to tread here, but I suggest 'advances' in philosophy are pretty rare. I wonder if the last ones were Kant 1781 and Frege 1879. (Neither were at Cambridge!)
I would suggest that Bertram Russel (in showing the flaw in Frege's constuction of number, and as a result advancing the axiomatic definition of set theory, ie why 1+1=2) and Karl Popper (in formulating empirical science in terms of falsification) are good examples of advances in philosophy in the 20th century.
How about Godel who showed that Russell had been wasting his time, and Wittgenstein who in PI showed that all philosophers had been wasting their time.
But most influential of all is Marx (the point is not to explain the world but to change the world). His philosophy has had an impact on hundreds of millions, exceeded in impact only by Jesus Christ and Mohammed.
Indeed. Hundreds of millions impoverished and tens of millions dead because of his philosophy.
Marx has been used as an excuse for dictatorship, as has Christ tbf. I suspect neither of them would have condoned that outcome.
Didn't he once say 'Je ne suis pas Marxiste!' when he observed some of the nonsense being perpetrated in his name?
You know much more than me about this. For me, the priority has to be to create new growth and the type of critical mass that allows London to thrive. The money pouring into London in tech (there was an article yesterday saying that the first 7 months of this year exceeded FDI for the whole of last year) goes there because of that critical mass of skills, opportunities, outstanding academic institutions and, of course, transport infrastructure which create opportunities for growth. That's great but we need to try to replicate it elsewhere.
Cambridge always leaned toward science and Oxford toward the arts.
That's interesting, because although as far as I can judge Oxford's science courses are still very good, its humanities and languages courses are now if not mediocre at least underwhelming. Their history degree struggles to match the one on offer at Brookes, for example.
Cambridge, by contrast, is by any measure an outstanding university for History.
Many years ago it was pointed out that most of our professors of philosophy came from Oxford, despite the main advances in the field having been made at Cambridge.
Angels fear to tread here, but I suggest 'advances' in philosophy are pretty rare. I wonder if the last ones were Kant 1781 and Frege 1879. (Neither were at Cambridge!)
I would suggest that Bertram Russel (in showing the flaw in Frege's constuction of number, and as a result advancing the axiomatic definition of set theory, ie why 1+1=2) and Karl Popper (in formulating empirical science in terms of falsification) are good examples of advances in philosophy in the 20th century.
How about Godel who showed that Russell had been wasting his time, and Wittgenstein who in PI showed that all philosophers had been wasting their time.
But most influential of all is Marx (the point is not to explain the world but to change the world). His philosophy has had an impact on hundreds of millions, exceeded in impact only by Jesus Christ and Mohammed.
Indeed. Hundreds of millions impoverished and tens of millions dead because of his philosophy.
Marxist China is doing quite well in creating wealth and building infrastructure (on topic).
At the cost of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution which combined killed maybe 70 million people.
The Brexit Party has a 10 to 15% core vote regardless (5% to 10% even if No Deal) however if Boris got Brexit and the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop through the Brexit Party would still be well below the 20 to 25% it was when May extended, mainly to the Tories benefit
Attention would then move to 39 billion pounds and a transition period that Farage will cry sell out so it might not be quite as clear cut as you think. Anyone know how close the U.K. would have to follow EU laws during the transition eg Financial Transparency requirements.
Which is why I said the Brexit Party would still get 10 to 15% even if the Withdrawal Agreement minus backstop was agreed and passed.
However UKIP got 12% in 2015 and the Tories still won a majority with a few working class Labour voters voting UKIP as they will also vote Brexit Party
The Tory 2015 majority came on the back of the LibDem collapse, didn’t it?
You know much more than me about this. For me, the priority has to be to create new growth and the type of critical mass that allows London to thrive. The money pouring into London in tech (there was an article yesterday saying that the first 7 months of this year exceeded FDI for the whole of last year) goes there because of that critical mass of skills, opportunities, outstanding academic institutions and, of course, transport infrastructure which create opportunities for growth. That's great but we need to try to replicate it elsewhere.
Cambridge always leaned toward science and Oxford toward the arts.
That's interesting, because although as far as I can judge Oxford's science courses are still very good, its humanities and languages courses are now if not mediocre at least underwhelming. Their history degree struggles to match the one on offer at Brookes, for example.
Cambridge, by contrast, is by any measure an outstanding university for History.
Many years ago it was pointed out that most of our professors of philosophy came from Oxford, despite the main advances in the field having been made at Cambridge.
Angels fear to tread here, but I suggest 'advances' in philosophy are pretty rare. I wonder if the last ones were Kant 1781 and Frege 1879. (Neither were at Cambridge!)
I would suggest that Bertram Russel (in showing the flaw in Frege's constuction of number, and as a r empirical science in terms of falsification) are good examples of advances in philosophy in the 20th century.
How about Godel who showed that Russell had been wasting his time, and Wittgenstein who in PI showed that all philosophers had been wasting their time.
But most influential of all is Marx (the point is not to explain the world but to change the world). His philosophy has had an impact on hundreds of millions, exceeded in impact only by Jesus Christ and Mohammed.
Indeed. Hundreds of millions impoverished and tens of millions dead because of his philosophy.
Marxist China is doing quite well in creating wealth and building infrastructure (on topic).
At the cost of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution which combined killed maybe 70 million people.
And I think it was FDR who once said that if the Chinese ever got a decent government they would take over the world.
David Davis and the TPA came up with suggestions for re-allocating the money from HS2 to lots of smaller schemes (I think there were around 29) spread out across the country. The biggest one was improving rail connections across the north and quite a few other schemes involved re-opening disused railway lines.
I think more people would see a benefit from re-introducing a lost railway service than making an existing one slightly faster.
The Brexit Party has a 10 to 15% core vote regardless (5% to 10% even if No Deal) however if Boris got Brexit and the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop through the Brexit Party would still be well below the 20 to 25% it was when May extended, mainly to the Tories benefit
Attention would then move to 39 billion pounds and a transition period that Farage will cry sell out so it might not be quite as clear cut as you think. Anyone know how close the U.K. would have to follow EU laws during the transition eg Financial Transparency requirements.
Which is why I said the Brexit Party would still get 10 to 15% even if the Withdrawal Agreement minus backstop was agreed and passed.
However UKIP got 12% in 2015 and the Tories still won a majority with a few working class Labour voters voting UKIP as they will also vote Brexit Party
The Tory 2015 majority came on the back of the LibDem collapse, didn’t it?
... and Tory fightback in Scotland (which is now looking wobbly).
You know much more than me about this. For me, the priority has to be to create new growth and the type of critical mass that allows London to thrive. The money pouring into London in tech (there was an article yesterday saying that the first 7 months of this year exceeded FDI for the whole of last year) goes there because of that critical mass of skills, opportunities, outstanding academic institutions and, of course, transport infrastructure which create opportunities for growth. That's great but we need to try to replicate it elsewhere.
Cambridge always leaned toward science and Oxford toward the arts.
That's interesting, because although as far as I can judge Oxford's science courses are still very good, its humanities and languages courses are now if not mediocre at least underwhelming. Their history degree struggles to match the one on offer at Brookes, for example.
Cambridge, by contrast, is by any measure an outstanding university for History.
Many years ago it was pointed out that most of our professors of philosophy came from Oxford, despite the main advances in the field having been made at Cambridge.
Angels fear to tread here, but I suggest 'advances' in philosophy are pretty rare. I wonder if the last ones were Kant 1781 and Frege 1879. (Neither were at Cambridge!)
I would suggest that Bertram Russel (in showing the flaw in Frege's constuction of number, and as a result advancing the axiomatic definition of set theory, ie why 1+1=2) and Karl Popper (in formulating empirical science in terms of falsification) are good examples of advances in philosophy in the 20th century.
How about Godel who showed that Russell had been wasting his time, and Wittgenstein who in PI showed that all philosophers had been wasting their time.
But most influential of all is Marx (the point is not to explain the world but to change the world). His philosophy has had an impact on hundreds of millions, exceeded in impact only by Jesus Christ and Mohammed.
Indeed. Hundreds of millions impoverished and tens of millions dead because of his philosophy.
Marx is not a philosopher, he's an economic historian, political scientist and useless prophet.
Instead of building a high speed line between Birmingham and Leeds via Toton, I would build a new line connection between the WCML north of Atherstone and the Burton to Leicester line at Moira. That line is no longer used and there isn't all that much traffic between Burton and Derby.
You could then run trains between Derby and Euston making use of the extra capacity on the WCML (once the Manchester bit of HS2 is done). This would give Burton direct trains to London and increase connectivity between stations on the WCML and Derby/Sheffield.
Interesting thought. I've travelled by road several times recently between the North West/ N Wales and Essex and my sat nav has taken me OFF the M6 at Stoke, and along the A50 to the M1. (And vice versa when going N) Quite light traffic in contrast to the log-jam which is the M6 south of Stoke to the M1, even allowing for the M6 Toll.
When it comes votes one has to recall that the UK mostly travels by car. Huge numbers of people never travel by train. The further north you go the more it is true.
That is because it is crap and you can hardly get anywhere on the same day. You see what happens when you spend the cash and put in infrasturucture as done in London/south , the trains are packed out.
A sole poll for Warren in Iowa should not make her 6.6/6.8 for the presidency right now :
HarrisX Biden 28% Sanders 17% Warren 10%
YouGov Biden 22% Sanders 19% Warren 17%
Morning Consult 1,998 RV Warren 35% 35% Trump EVEN
The last five polls in Iowa have had Biden winning in two, Warren in two and Buttigieg in one.
Biden's problem is that his aura of invincibility rests on him winning. If he were to lose Iowa and New Hampshire, how would his national numbers hold up?
You know much more than me about this. For me, the priority has to be to create new growth and the type of critical mass that allows London to thrive. The money pouring into London in tech (there was an article yesterday saying that the first 7 months of this year exceeded FDI for the whole of last year) goes there because of that critical mass of skills, opportunities, outstanding academic institutions and, of course, transport infrastructure which create opportunities for growth. That's great but we need to try to replicate it elsewhere.
Cambridge always leaned toward science and Oxford toward the arts.
That's interesting, because although as far as I can judge Oxford's science courses are still very good, its humanities and languages courses are now if not mediocre at least underwhelming. Their history degree struggles to match the one on offer at Brookes, for example.
Cambridge, by contrast, is by any measure an outstanding university for History.
Many years ago it was pointed out that most of our professors of philosophy came from Oxford, despite the main advances in the field having been made at Cambridge.
Angels fear to tread here, but I suggest 'advances' in philosophy are pretty rare. I wonder if the last ones were Kant 1781 and Frege 1879. (Neither were at Cambridge!)
I would suggest that Bertram Russel (in showing the flaw in Frege's constuction of number, and as a result advancing the axiomatic definition of set theory, ie why 1+1=2) and Karl Popper (in formulating empirical science in terms of falsification) are good examples of advances in philosophy in the 20th century.
How about Godel who showed that Russell had been wasting his time, and Wittgenstein who in PI showed that all philosophers had been wasting their time.
But most influential of all is Marx (the point is not to explain the world but to change the world). His philosophy has had an impact on hundreds of millions, exceeded in impact only by Jesus Christ and Mohammed.
Indeed. Hundreds of millions impoverished and tens of millions dead because of his philosophy.
Marx is not a philosopher, he's an economic historian, political scientist and useless prophet.
Agreed. Marx was more of a seer. The problems came when his dimmer disciples turned him into a kind of self-improvement guru.
London is a positive thing. We’re lucky to have it. People need to accept that. There is a lot of them and us nonsense.
In my experience, planes and the location of airports have more impact on business decisions than trains. You need to be located within one hour direct of a decent international airport to thrive.
I count my blessings every day that we have London, what would I do with all the money if if it was not being siphoned off to London.
+1 As an example:-
Transport spending in London is £3,636 per person, compared with £519 in the North-East and £511 in Yorkshire, over the next 15 years.
Now equally I could annoy Malcolm and talk about how little the North gets compared to Scotland per capita but attacking London is very easy.
Eek, all part of the same game, at least the North can influence the spending , no matter who we vote for Scotland cannot change it. However your point is valid and the North should feel as aggrieved as Scotland.
In order to have money siphoned off to London, one would need to pay more than one received back. The siphoning takes place from, not to, London.
David Davis and the TPA came up with suggestions for re-allocating the money from HS2 to lots of smaller schemes (I think there were around 29) spread out across the country. The biggest one was improving rail connections across the north and quite a few other schemes involved re-opening disused railway lines.
I think more people would see a benefit from re-introducing a lost railway service than making an existing one slightly faster.
It's not making a line slightly faster - it's about increasing capacity.
One thing we are really bad at in this country is actually ensuring all the benefits of a scheme are explained - someone takes a single item and runs with it ignoring everything else.
Either build HS2 or don't. @MalcolmG take on "Jobs for the boys" sounds wildly accurate. £7Bn spent already ? Who has this 7£Bn - as it is our, (taxpayers) money shouldn't we be able to see a breakdown... and what these companies have actually done for their wonga.
I've become ambivalent about HS2, I don't think the business case is there for it (Unlike LHR3 which needs to go ahead) and would rather the north was connected up with proper train links.
Also I'm not sure who lives in Birmingham with the intention of commuting to London, let alone further north :E !
That is to totally misunderstand the capaciy issues. This is not just about a fast service but provding the much needed extra capacity on the line for local, stopping and other serivces.
That will help make it High speed having lots of slow local trains chugging up and down it. Bit like buying a Ferrari to go shopping at Tesco.
The High Speed Trains will be on the High Speed Line
The Local/Commuting Trains will be on the current line.
No wonder GERS confuses you.
You really are an arsehole. Did you read Mike's post to which I replied or were you too desperate to get your" I hate Scotland" dig in. Just so you can get a non addled adult to read it to you I repeat it below. Do you see him mention two lines smartarse.
"This is not just about a fast service but provding the much needed extra capacity on the line for local, stopping and other serivces. "
Your comment was:
That will help make it High speed having lots of slow local trains chugging up and down it. Bit like buying a Ferrari to go shopping at Tesco.
Which rather gives the impression that you think local trains will be on the High Speed Line - is that what you think?
A question about very low yields on long term government bonds.
Don't they mean that investors are unable to find other things they think will give a better long term yield ?
Which suggests that long term economic growth might not be as high it has been projected to be.
And if future long term growth is lower than it is projected to be doesn't that make it unlikely that future growth in transport requirements will be as high as it has been projected to be ?
Interesting question but I would say not. The very low yield on government bonds is being driven by demographics (more pensions in payment backed by annuities or bonds), by the overreaction to the GFC shown by the Basel system which forces banks to keep capital in "secure" assets, and by the surplus saving being generated by countries like China with massive trade surpluses to recycle. Of course there is a bit of fear too but a short term recession (which is likely) doesn't tell us a lot about growth and demand over the longer term, at least in my view.
Point of Order, Mr D - China's trade surplus isn't actually that big. I
Either build HS2 or don't. @MalcolmG take on "Jobs for the boys" sounds wildly accurate. £7Bn spent already ? Who has this 7£Bn - as it is our, (taxpayers) money shouldn't we be able to see a breakdown... and what these companies have actually done for their wonga.
I've become ambivalent about HS2, I don't think the business case is there for it (Unlike LHR3 which needs to go ahead) and would rather the north was connected up with proper train links.
Also I'm not sure who lives in Birmingham with the intention of commuting to London, let alone further north :E !
That is to totally misunderstand the capaciy issues. This is not just about a fast service but provding the much needed extra capacity on the line for local, stopping and other serivces.
That will help make it High speed having lots of slow local trains chugging up and down it. Bit like buying a Ferrari to go shopping at Tesco.
The High Speed Trains will be on the High Speed Line
The Local/Commuting Trains will be on the current line.
No wonder GERS confuses you.
You really are an arsehole. Did you read Mike's post to which I replied or were you too desperate to get your" I hate Scotland" dig in. Just so you can get a non addled adult to read it to you I repeat it below. Do you see him mention two lines smartarse.
"This is not just about a fast service but provding the much needed extra capacity on the line for local, stopping and other serivces. "
Tbf I think you misunderstood Mike's original point Malcolm... HS2 will provide capacity for fast trains, thus removing fast trains from the existing lines, thus giving more capacity for slow & commuter trains on the existing lines.
Slow trains will not run on HS2 IIUIC.
Ben, thanks but I did understand that, Mike merely worded it badly and it read like he was saying the idea was to put slow commuter and high speed on the same line. I said it "tongue in cheek" but should know better that arseholes like Carlotta are just sitting festering waiting any opportunity to add "I hate Scotland and the SNP digs".
Comments
Ms Merkel has just done what she does very well, which is to stand firm, while letting her guest think they have heard something that they wanted to hear.
It's one thing to go down swinging when everyone else is publicly backing you and you thought your opposition would fold. It's another entirely when your own side are already wanting to move on and your opposition isn't folding.
A face saving Deal works for everyone. You read it here first.
It’s like those people who try to score a point because the rich pay carry a significant and rising proportion of the tax burden - because they account for a high and rising proportion of income.
Don't they mean that investors are unable to find other things they think will give a better long term yield ?
Which suggests that long term economic growth might not be as high it has been projected to be.
And if future long term growth is lower than it is projected to be doesn't that make it unlikely that future growth in transport requirements will be as high as it has been projected to be ?
So the Midlands and Wales is probably the key target for the Tories rather than the North in terms of Labour marginal seats and based on Yougov they could even win back some Labour seats in London and the South they lost in 2017 too.
Plus while HS2 might bring benefits to the North there is little evidence of a huge wave of support for it especially given its cost
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/08/20/voting-intention-con-30-lab-21-lib-dem-20-brex-14-
Varadkar is only in power because his main opponents are giving him supply and confidence. If the time is right they can collapse the government and remove him from office. really he should have settled up last September, claimed victory and then won his GE. He has held on too long.
It is of course ironic that both RoI and Uk are led in effect by minority governments and PMs who havent been elected.
HarrisX
Biden
28%
Sanders
17%
Warren
10%
YouGov
Biden
22%
Sanders
19%
Warren
17%
Morning Consult
1,998 RV Warren
35%
35%
Trump EVEN
This isn't just about London. Cambridge is being strangled by a lack of ability to expand. Improving the infrastructure around it (eg investing in the idea of a light rail to Haverhill) would be a very smart move.
Splurging money on infrastructure in areas without a broader plan of how that economy is going to benefit is a colossal waste of money.
You could then run trains between Derby and Euston making use of the extra capacity on the WCML (once the Manchester bit of HS2 is done). This would give Burton direct trains to London and increase connectivity between stations on the WCML and Derby/Sheffield.
A fair chunk of HS2 has already broken ground.
I originally said May would only get the backstop removed if she was serious about no deal which she clearly wasn't. So she would either need to get serious or be replaced by someone who would be. By the confidence vote I was already very clear May had failed, would never succeed and had to be replaced.
Given I thought May and her weakness was the problem how was I wrong?
It's now up to the UK and Irish Governments to create a joint solution.
Having read the full terms of reference of the HS2 review, I have come around to the view that the review is indeed a window dressing exercise designed to park the issue for the duration of the Autumn general election campaign and then give the green light to proceed, although possibly reducing the project to a new London-Birmingham link. The panel is on record as having in general given strong support to the project with few exceptions and would have a vast amount of humble pie to swallow. It is not "independent" in any meaningful form. For example appointing the likes of Andy Street is like appointing Leo Varadkhar to a panel overseeing an independent review of the Brexit backstop. Crucially, the terms of reference of the project do not allow for any comparison with the cost-benefits of the myriad of alternative transport and other capital projects that could be financed across the North and Midlands using the vast share of public funding that HS2 will consume.
My family (who all vote LD or Labour) lives on or around Merseyside, some in LD target seats, or at least seats the LDs might realistically aspire to win. A few in the political bubble might be miffed in HS2's scrapped: most will be pleased yet another London-centric boondoggle's been junked.
Personally, I find no difficulty getting to the NW by train, and I've yet to meet anyone in the SE who has. But I've yet to meet anyone who thinks even the current system offers value for money, or who thinks HS2 will avoid pushing prices up still further.
This is the first initiative from Johnson that appeals to all the potential LD conversts I socialise with. Dismiss them as NIMBYs if you want: but don't delude yourselves real voters want a new motorway-scale railway line on an Apollo Moonshot-scale budget.
However UKIP got 12% in 2015 and the Tories still won a majority with a few working class Labour voters voting UKIP as they will also vote Brexit Party
Everyone benefits from HS2. The problem HS2 has is a PR one - it has always been talked about as if it was a George Osbourne vanity project. "Who really needs to get to London 10 minutes quicker?" etc etc. But getting to London 10 minutes quicker is a side benefit - the main purpose of HS2 is capacity.
(Having a second north-south mainline also lets you do things like close one of them for upgrades / maintenance at quiet times & not drastically effect services - something that really isn’t possible at the moment.)
But most influential of all is Marx (the point is not to explain the world but to change the world). His philosophy has had an impact on hundreds of millions, exceeded in impact only by Jesus Christ and Mohammed.
Why is all that so terrible and yet some mythical yet-to-happen trade link to US, presumably a lot by air suddenly the solution to all our problems?
It is just certain politicians and their obsession with the US.
https://twitter.com/telebusiness/status/1164236976347865088?s=21
"This is not just about a fast service but provding the much needed extra capacity on the line for local, stopping and other serivces. "
The idea that not addressing "capacity issues" by building a new line between Birmingham and London is going to be a great vote-loser in the North is an odd piece of logic to begin with.
I wonder if the government committed £90bn or whatever this is going to end up as to improvements or new versions for extra capacity for the M6, the M62, the M56 etc what we could see for that.
I bet that would have just as much NIMBYism but probably improve the lives of more voters in the North than a new line addressing capacity issues primarily between Birmingham and London does.
Slow trains will not run on HS2 IIUIC.
Not saying that these are benefits, mind, not for the UK anyway but it’s why the US is so keen on one.
Not sure why he said it in French.
I think more people would see a benefit from re-introducing a lost railway service than making an existing one slightly faster.
Look at the population density:
England: 434 p/km sq
France: 112 p/ km sq
Germany; 232 p/km sq
Is it any wonder we're struggling with infrastructre based on that?
'The UK town where men would work until they die if the pension age hits 75'
https://tinyurl.com/y6yh23ua
Biden's problem is that his aura of invincibility rests on him winning. If he were to lose Iowa and New Hampshire, how would his national numbers hold up?
One thing we are really bad at in this country is actually ensuring all the benefits of a scheme are explained - someone takes a single item and runs with it ignoring everything else.
Your comment was:
That will help make it High speed having lots of slow local trains chugging up and down it. Bit like buying a Ferrari to go shopping at Tesco.
Which rather gives the impression that you think local trains will be on the High Speed Line - is that what you think?
And not once did I mention Scotland.
* So long as we accept "in the very best case scenario"