Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB leadership latest
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB leadership latest
Hot betting LAB leadership favourite Keir Starmer first to make it onto the leadership ballot https://t.co/CQ0O2Bvokn
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
That seemed way out to me.
https://twitter.com/earthygirl011/status/1218981276964786181?s=20
https://twitter.com/blue_beyond_/status/1219310985938395136?s=20
Of 18 CLPs so far nominating, 7 nominated Corbyn in 2016.
Of those 7:
- 3 have backed Starmer
- 2 have backed Thornberry
- 2 have backed RLB
RLB's other two nominations came from CLPs that didn't nominate in 2016.
Nor is the rest of the sample biased towards CLPs that nominated Smith in 2016. Only 1 such constituency has so far made a nomination (and nominated Starmer.)
But Phillips is definitely in trouble.
http://hurryupharry.org/2020/01/20/the-manchester-grooming-gang-they-ruled-with-impunity-and-we-made-ourselves-powerless/
As long as journalists refuse to prioritize stories that have ethnic minorities as "the bad guys" the victims will continue to pile up.
If the government wished to go ahead, it would have little reason not to publish Oakervee's recommendations now. If the government wished to scrap HS2, it will need to develop an alternative set of spending plans available in outline at the time of the announcement in order to be shown to be putting something else the way of the North and Midlands.
Also, the National Audit Office is due to weigh in with a further report by the end of the month which is expected to question the project's value and which Johnson would want as cover if he were to pull the project.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/audit-office-to-criticise-hs2-delays-and-costs-kq8sjrhzt
Very few people are going to commute daily from Leeds to Manchester or Birmingham to Nottingham, otherwise they'd be much better off moving. So we should be spending the money on projects like the Nottingham Tram rather than HS2.
I'm not saying there isn't a capacity problem on the WCML by the way, but surely that could be solved by fully upgrading the existing Chiltern line?
I don't disagree that Sanders can win the nomination. But remember he's polling at 20% nationally now, rather than 43% nationally last time. All the polling evidence is that Democrats prefer a moderate. The Monmouth College Iowa poll really demonstrates his problem: as you eliminate low support candidates, he's not the major beneficiary.
Sanders was the stop-Clinton candidate. He was excused many of his policy positions because he wasn't Clinton.
"I can't wait for HS2 to arrive"
Once it’s built, future generations will think it odd it was ever controversial.
It’s a real test of Boris’s character and decision making process this. Does he listen to ill informed reactionaries like Andrew Gilligan, or is he prepared to rely on the considered and formal advice of the wider industry.
Much like Huawei. We’ll get a sense of whether he is as gullible and “bend over, pants down, do as you like sir” for communist China as Osborne was, or whether he actually understands the 21st geopolitical order. As Tugenhardt said, at a price it’s possible to guard the hens from the fox. But why let the fox into the hen house in the first place?
It's just a modern high-speed railway line running up the spine of England connecting all the major cities with the capital, whilst the others date from the Victorian era and are dangerously creaky and at capacity. It's a strategic economic enabler for the midlands and the North and will really help modal shift off domestic flights as well and liberate space on existing domestic commuter lines as well. Once it's built, it will be a step change and widely appreciated.
And yet, people go purple in the face about it - a railway line.
Utterly bizzare.
I've now quit Crossrail.
The question is whether he will find that cover from somewhere, or whether he will carry on dithering. He’s beginning to look more and more like Tony Blair without the verbal fluency.
Pop quiz: which you gonna build?
But you’ll never build the tidal lagoons, as a load of eco-warriors will complain about the damage they cause to the seabed.
And knowing that it can't be cancelled, the costs will inevitably spiral. There is no meaningful sanction to prevent that happening.
The other aspect is that HS2 is very unambitious. If we’re going to dig up all that countryside, shouldn’t we be installing plutonium-powered MagLev or Elon Musk vacuum tubes rather than technology that is already thirty years old? And if we are installing thirty years old technology, surely it should be cheap by way of compensation?
(The ecological issues aren't a problem, in reality. They have already been addressed in Swansea. But even if compromises needed to be made, they'd still win out on the Geater Good argument. Because these are the issues we have to face up to in order to save the planet.)
That he is in the position he is in, seems to me about name recognition and the utter patheticness of the other Democrats (or parasites on the host in the case of Sanders).
But governments hate entering into them, because if the private company does well, then they're idiots.
Are you sure that’s not going to lead to an increase in costs?
HS2 will allow large numbers of people to be moved rapidly around the country, in comfort, roughly every 5 minutes very efficiently using low carbon/no carbon green electricity.
Short of a teleporter it’s about as much of a wonder technology as we can credibly get.
Most private sector companies will simply threaten to stop work if they’re losing money or in a poor cashflow position.
Yes, they know that technically means litigation but few government clients dare go all the way down that road as they’re not commercially astute or prepared enough to do it, and the private company always has better information. They don’t want to rack up millions in legal fees and delay the project for years.
Since it can be virtually always argued the Client has changed or instructed something extra over what was envisaged in the original contract it ends in a compromise - a settlement - which is much better for the private firm that if it had just stayed quiet.
https://twitter.com/qikipedia/status/1219499867455643648
Yes enough people are that stupid that you really do have to explain things in small worlds.
HS2 failed the instance the BBC Breakfast news announced it as a faster train to Birmingham.
And it's disliked by a lot of people especially those in London and Buckinghamshire as it doesn't actually give them any benefit as they already have decent trains to London and as it travels between the Chiltern and West Coast lines all it is, is 5 years of engineering pain and diversions.
Then when the benefits are obvious we won't even need the London bit.
For a lot of the DFT it's actually about preventing spending on infrastructure with a love of ever more deeper studies and consultations that drag about the planning period for roads and railways until most of the time people give up.
Crossrail is an example. The was fierce campaigning against it being built and when the Cameron came to power, it was eagerly offered up as a scheme to cancel to save money. Indeed I remember stories in the Times about senior civil servants boasting about killing it off. It survived , and yes it has gone over budget, but at the moment it looks like it's going to be 20 to 25% over budget.
But it is necessary, it will be busy and will transform London. It will be worth it.
So will Hs2. It is only answer to the mainlines out of London filling up. Upgrading the existing lines is running into diminishing returns. It increases capacity on the West coast main line by 62%, midland main by 42% and the East Coast by 35%.
There is an argument that it is over engineered. In their desire to run 18 trains an hour on the new line, is leading to some expensive track construction options to foundations and track quality. The busiest high speed lines in the World run no more than 14 trains an hour. To push it higher you are increasing wear on the track, this means more maintenance but less time to do it in, when you want the line to run at full capacity. If they pushed it back down to 14 trains an hour you'd save a lot on track construction. You could compensate on the capacity by running more splitting services. Train on Hs2 can be 400m long, so almost 2 normal trains in length. Plus the services to Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham can be run with double decker trains when you need the capacity.
I think the problem we don't build that many big projects in the UK so when we do , people want it capable of doing everything. If we were serious we'd have planned 3 high speed lines in the UK, replacements for the West Coast and East Coast and New line for the South West.
The reality is, if the line to Birmingham is built, then the opposition to a new railway know they have lost. As this is the most important and expensive part. Plus once it's built all the Southern Tories will no longer care, and most Northerners will want the extensions built. Once built the next stages may take longer, but they will eventually happen.
Have a good morning.
The anecdote comes purely from the company itself. Much more likely to about branding, just as you wouldn't expect a Coke rival to succeed by being better, and better value for money, than Coke.
You know it goes to Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield and will knock an hour off the train time to Edinburgh.
Is your objection that it goes to London?
Unless of course they mean it. That isn't possible is it?
However you slice it, and I’m sure as @rationalplan2 says economies could be made, it’s a ginormous figure. I simply refuse to believe that it couldn’t be spent far more productively on less glamorous projects.
There are three regional infrastructure problems that could be usefully addressed - Crossrail 2, the Trans Pennine link and improving connectivity in the Scottish central belt. I suspect all three could be done for less than HS2.
I'm sceptical about Crossrail 2. I'm not sure who wants to make journeys from Tooting to the Lea Valley. Waterloo is fairly central and has good tube connections anyway. The only advantage of building two more lines from Surbiton into the centre of London would be to make use of spare capacity on the SWML from Surbiton to Basingstoke. Perhaps if the Basingstoke to Exeter line was returned to its former glory, then maybe it would make sense.
Sorry but as Boris wants to keep the north you won't see a big London infrastructure project in his premiership.
I guess the stigma of finding yourself second to Trump may have negative implications for your political future?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1219439427488866305?s=20