If the current plans are crap then make them better - invest in decent infrastructure for once.
I don't object to HS2.
I do object to cancelling all sorts of other infrastructure across the North and rest of the country because there's no money for it, but having a blank cheque running over a hundred billion pounds to avoid poor dear going to London having a bit of overcrowding on one line while every other transport can go to hell.
If the current plans are crap then make them better - invest in decent infrastructure for once.
I don't object to HS2.
I do object to cancelling all sorts of other infrastructure across the North and rest of the country because there's no money for it, but having a blank cheque running over a hundred billion pounds to avoid poor dear going to London having a bit of overcrowding on one line while every other transport can go to hell.
If the current plans are crap then make them better - invest in decent infrastructure for once.
I don't object to HS2.
I do object to cancelling all sorts of other infrastructure across the North and rest of the country because there's no money for it, but having a blank cheque running over a hundred billion pounds to avoid poor dear going to London having a bit of overcrowding on one line while every other transport can go to hell.
What projects are being cancelled because of HS2? (Genuine question, not being arsey)
If the current plans are crap then make them better - invest in decent infrastructure for once.
I don't object to HS2.
I do object to cancelling all sorts of other infrastructure across the North and rest of the country because there's no money for it, but having a blank cheque running over a hundred billion pounds to avoid poor dear going to London having a bit of overcrowding on one line while every other transport can go to hell.
What projects are being cancelled because of HS2? (Genuine question, not being arsey)
Every pet project of every single moaning shrill moaner and route adjacent Nimbys ?
I still think Matthew Parris has it right in the Times. This is a transport corridor for the next two generations. Do it.
No, Simon Jenkins has it right in the Guardian: "the courage will not be to proceed but to call a halt to this nonsense, to do something better with so much money."
I note the £106 billion cost figure is dubious and a new figure "with contingency" is closer to £130 billion. Or £5,000 for every household in the UK.
Here's the issue:
- A problem is identified.
- Plans are drawn up to solve the problem.
- Because of the need to alleviate those affected by the proposed solution, costs go sky high.
- People now correctly adjudge that better things could be done with the money.
- The project is cancelled.
Rinse and repeat. And nothing ever gets built. Heathrow, HS2, etc. If we cancel this (and maybe we should), we'll spend three years deciding what else to build. Then people on the route will complain. Costs will go through the roof... Etc etc etc.
If the current plans are crap then make them better - invest in decent infrastructure for once.
I don't object to HS2.
I do object to cancelling all sorts of other infrastructure across the North and rest of the country because there's no money for it, but having a blank cheque running over a hundred billion pounds to avoid poor dear going to London having a bit of overcrowding on one line while every other transport can go to hell.
What projects are being cancelled because of HS2? (Genuine question, not being arsey)
I'm not sure if I misphrased it but I said other projects are being cancelled because there's no money not because of HS2, despite an apparently bottomless pit for this one project.
Electrification of much of the northern rail network is either years behind schedule or cancelled because of a lack of money.
Its like saying that you can't afford to get bread and milk in your groceries but can afford Dom Perignon at the restaurant.
If the current plans are crap then make them better - invest in decent infrastructure for once.
I don't object to HS2.
I do object to cancelling all sorts of other infrastructure across the North and rest of the country because there's no money for it, but having a blank cheque running over a hundred billion pounds to avoid poor dear going to London having a bit of overcrowding on one line while every other transport can go to hell.
What projects are being cancelled because of HS2? (Genuine question, not being arsey)
I'm not sure if I misphrased it but I said other projects are being cancelled because there's no money not because of HS2, despite an apparently bottomless pit for this one project.
Electrification of much of the northern rail network is either years behind schedule or cancelled because of a lack of money.
Its like saying that you can't afford to get bread and milk in your groceries but can afford Dom Perignon at the restaurant.
If there is a reasonable ROI we should borrow to pay for all of them.
If the current plans are crap then make them better - invest in decent infrastructure for once.
I don't object to HS2.
I do object to cancelling all sorts of other infrastructure across the North and rest of the country because there's no money for it, but having a blank cheque running over a hundred billion pounds to avoid poor dear going to London having a bit of overcrowding on one line while every other transport can go to hell.
Then build the Northen bit first.
To Edinburgh even.
If that was being done the project would make more sense, especially when people claim this is being done for the north when its going to take a decade and a half to get this line past the midlands - if it ever does.
I still think Matthew Parris has it right in the Times. This is a transport corridor for the next two generations. Do it.
No, Simon Jenkins has it right in the Guardian: "the courage will not be to proceed but to call a halt to this nonsense, to do something better with so much money."
I note the £106 billion cost figure is dubious and a new figure "with contingency" is closer to £130 billion. Or £5,000 for every household in the UK.
Here's the issue:
- A problem is identified.
- Plans are drawn up to solve the problem.
- Because of the need to alleviate those affected by the proposed solution, costs go sky high.
- People now correctly adjudge that better things could be done with the money.
- The project is cancelled.
Rinse and repeat. And nothing ever gets built. Heathrow, HS2, etc. If we cancel this (and maybe we should), we'll spend three years deciding what else to build. Then people on the route will complain. Costs will go through the roof... Etc etc etc.
If the current plans are crap then make them better - invest in decent infrastructure for once.
I don't object to HS2.
I do object to cancelling all sorts of other infrastructure across the North and rest of the country because there's no money for it, but having a blank cheque running over a hundred billion pounds to avoid poor dear going to London having a bit of overcrowding on one line while every other transport can go to hell.
What projects are being cancelled because of HS2? (Genuine question, not being arsey)
I'm not sure if I misphrased it but I said other projects are being cancelled because there's no money not because of HS2, despite an apparently bottomless pit for this one project.
Electrification of much of the northern rail network is either years behind schedule or cancelled because of a lack of money.
Its like saying that you can't afford to get bread and milk in your groceries but can afford Dom Perignon at the restaurant.
£100Bn on a state of the art north to south railway could be money well spent.
It’s selfish to object to it because the benefits are a decade off.
Gordon Brown borrowed £157 billion in a single year - basically stolen from future generations to fund his PM ambitions.
If the current plans are crap then make them better - invest in decent infrastructure for once.
I don't object to HS2.
I do object to cancelling all sorts of other infrastructure across the North and rest of the country because there's no money for it, but having a blank cheque running over a hundred billion pounds to avoid poor dear going to London having a bit of overcrowding on one line while every other transport can go to hell.
What projects are being cancelled because of HS2? (Genuine question, not being arsey)
I'm not sure if I misphrased it but I said other projects are being cancelled because there's no money not because of HS2, despite an apparently bottomless pit for this one project.
Electrification of much of the northern rail network is either years behind schedule or cancelled because of a lack of money.
Its like saying that you can't afford to get bread and milk in your groceries but can afford Dom Perignon at the restaurant.
£100Bn on a state of the art north to south railway could be money well spent.
This isn't even going to the north. Well it might, by the middle of the next decade apparently reach some of it.
If the current plans are crap then make them better - invest in decent infrastructure for once.
I don't object to HS2.
I do object to cancelling all sorts of other infrastructure across the North and rest of the country because there's no money for it, but having a blank cheque running over a hundred billion pounds to avoid poor dear going to London having a bit of overcrowding on one line while every other transport can go to hell.
What projects are being cancelled because of HS2? (Genuine question, not being arsey)
I'm not sure if I misphrased it but I said othernetwork is either years behind schedule or cancelled because of a lack of money.
Its like saying that you can't afford to get bread and milk in your groceries but can afford Dom Perignon at the restaurant.
£100Bn on a state of the art north to south railway could be money well spent.
This isn't even going to the north. Well it might, by the middle of the next decade apparently reach some of it.
It can’t go to the north of you don’t build the bit from London.
As I said - in the context of a Labour government its peanuts - and spent over 10-15 years its small peanuts.
If the current plans are crap then make them better - invest in decent infrastructure for once.
I don't object to HS2.
I do object to cancelling all sorts of other infrastructure across the North and rest of the country because there's no money for it, but having a blank cheque running over a hundred billion pounds to avoid poor dear going to London having a bit of overcrowding on one line while every other transport can go to hell.
What projects are being cancelled because of HS2? (Genuine question, not being arsey)
I'm not sure if I misphrased it but I said other projects are being cancelled because there's no money not because of HS2, despite an apparently bottomless pit for this one project.
Electrification of much of the northern rail network is either years behind schedule or cancelled because of a lack of money.
Its like saying that you can't afford to get bread and milk in your groceries but can afford Dom Perignon at the restaurant.
£100Bn on a state of the art north to south railway could be money well spent.
It’s selfish to object to it because the benefits are a decade off.
Gordon Brown borrowed £157 billion in a single year - basically stolen from future generations to fund his PM ambitions.
You edited in the later sentences so I'll reply again. I have no qualms whatsoever on investing for the long term future, that's not the problem.
My problem is not that this blank cheque project is taking decades, though it is an issue. My problem is that so many other projects costing a small fraction of the money are cancelled without as much as a blink of the eye, yet this one with its bloated and escalating budget is untouchable.
If the money is found for this to the tune of a hundred billion pounds plus then lets find the money for more mundane but just as serious maintenance and development work on commuter routes that are creaking and not just one single route that is eyecatching.
If the money can be found to do the basics elsewhere then yes go on to do new lines like this.
If the current plans are crap then make them better - invest in decent infrastructure for once.
I don't object to HS2.
I do object to cancelling all sorts of other infrastructure across the North and rest of the country because there's no money for it, but having a blank cheque running over a hundred billion pounds to avoid poor dear going to London having a bit of overcrowding on one line while every other transport can go to hell.
What projects are being cancelled because of HS2? (Genuine question, not being arsey)
I'm not sure if I misphrased it but I said other projects are being cancelled because there's no money not because of HS2, despite an apparently bottomless pit for this one project.
Electrification of much of the northern rail network is either years behind schedule or cancelled because of a lack of money.
Its like saying that you can't afford to get bread and milk in your groceries but can afford Dom Perignon at the restaurant.
£100Bn on a state of the art north to south railway could be money well spent.
It’s selfish to object to it because the benefits are a decade off.
Gordon Brown borrowed £157 billion in a single year - basically stolen from future generations to fund his PM ambitions.
You edited in the later sentences so I'll reply My problem is not that this blank cheque project is taking decades, though it is an issue. My problem is that so many other projects costing a small fraction of the money are cancelled without as much as a blink of the eye, yet this one with its bloated and escalating budget is untouchable.
If the money is found for this to the tune of a hundred billion pounds plus then lets find the money for more mundane but serious maintenance and development work on commuter routes that are creaking and not just one single route that is eyecatching.
If the money can be found to do the basics elsewhere then yes go on to do new lines like this.
You edited in the later sentences so I'll reply My problem is not that this blank cheque project is taking decades, though it is an issue. My problem is that so many other projects costing a small fraction of the money are cancelled without as much as a blink of the eye, yet this one with its bloated and escalating budget is untouchable.
If the money is found for this to the tune of a hundred billion pounds plus then lets find the money for more mundane but serious maintenance and development work on commuter routes that are creaking and not just one single route that is eyecatching.
If the money can be found to do the basics elsewhere then yes go on to do new lines like this.
Why not do all of them ?
I thought I covered that with the last paragraph?
Yes then I have no issue. I have no issue with HS2 itself, I have an issue with not doing the basics elsewhere while having a blank cheque for HS2. If the funds can be there for the basics elsewhere then yes absolutely HS2 can and should be funded.
We should be investing in infrastructure, not investing in one piece of infrastructure while letting everything else rot.
You edited in the later sentences so I'll reply My problem is not that this blank cheque project is taking decades, though it is an issue. My problem is that so many other projects costing a small fraction of the money are cancelled without as much as a blink of the eye, yet this one with its bloated and escalating budget is untouchable.
If the money is found for this to the tune of a hundred billion pounds plus then lets find the money for more mundane but serious maintenance and development and not just one single route that is eyecatching.
If the money can be found to do the basics elsewhere then yes go on to do new lines like this.
Why not do all of them ?
I thought I covered that with the last paragraph?
Yes then I have no issue. I have no issue with HS2 itself, I have an issue with not doing the basics elsewhere while having a blank cheque for HS2. If the funds can be there for the basics elsewhere then yes absolutely HS2 can and should be funded.
We should be investing in infrastructure, not investing in one piece of infrastructure while letting everything else rot.
Indeed - but nobody is proposing such a binary approach.
You edited in the later sentences so I'll reply My problem is not that this blank cheque project is taking decades, though it is an issue. My problem is that so many other projects costing a small fraction of the money are cancelled without as much as a blink of the eye, yet this one with its bloated and escalating budget is untouchable.
If the money is found for this to the tune of a hundred billion pounds plus then lets find the money for more mundane but serious maintenance and development and not just one single route that is eyecatching.
If the money can be found to do the basics elsewhere then yes go on to do new lines like this.
Why not do all of them ?
I thought I covered that with the last paragraph?
Yes then I have no issue. I have no issue with HS2 itself, I have an issue with not doing the basics elsewhere while having a blank cheque for HS2. If the funds can be there for the basics elsewhere then yes absolutely HS2 can and should be funded.
We should be investing in infrastructure, not investing in one piece of infrastructure while letting everything else rot.
Indeed - but nobody is proposing such a binary approach.
Actually that's exactly what has been happening for years. Cancellation of other developments isn't hypothetical, its happening - and those other developments cost a fraction of HS2's ballooning budget.
I still think Matthew Parris has it right in the Times. This is a transport corridor for the next two generations. Do it.
No, Simon Jenkins has it right in the Guardian: "the courage will not be to proceed but to call a halt to this nonsense, to do something better with so much money."
I note the £106 billion cost figure is dubious and a new figure "with contingency" is closer to £130 billion. Or £5,000 for every household in the UK.
Here's the issue:
- A problem is identified.
- Plans are drawn up to solve the problem.
- Because of the need to alleviate those affected by the proposed solution, costs go sky high.
- People now correctly adjudge that better things could be done with the money.
- The project is cancelled.
Rinse and repeat. And nothing ever gets built. Heathrow, HS2, etc. If we cancel this (and maybe we should), we'll spend three years deciding what else to build. Then people on the route will complain. Costs will go through the roof... Etc etc etc.
Nothing gets done because all the money is being set aside for one huge mega project instead of spreading it around the country on the hundreds of small and medium sized capital projects, for which a need has been identified but no funding has been forthcoming in over a decade of austerity, the first tranche of which could be started in next to no time and completed within half a decade.
Or if you're really stuck for ideas, just build 2 million council homes (through making available to councils a capital subsidy of £50,000 per home to offset the reduction from market rents and allowing them to borrow against the remaining future rental stream.)
You edited in the later sentences so I'll reply My problem is not that this blank cheque project is taking decades, though it is an issue. My problem is that so many other projects costing a small fraction of the money are cancelled without as much as a blink of the eye, yet this one with its bloated and escalating budget is untouchable.
If the money is found for this to the tune of a hundred billion pounds plus then lets find the money for more mundane but serious maintenance and development and not just one single route that is eyecatching.
If the money can be found to do the basics elsewhere then yes go on to do new lines like this.
Why not do all of them ?
I thought I covered that with the last paragraph?
Yes then I have no issue. I have no issue with HS2 itself, I have an issue with not doing the basics elsewhere while having a blank cheque for HS2. If the funds can be there for the basics elsewhere then yes absolutely HS2 can and should be funded.
We should be investing in infrastructure, not investing in one piece of infrastructure while letting everything else rot.
Indeed - but nobody is proposing such a binary approach.
Actually that's exactly what has been happening for years. Cancellation of other developments isn't hypothetical, its happening - and those other developments cost a fraction of HS2's ballooning budget.
Spoiler - under Mrs May nothing got done - even the free stuff.
You edited in the later sentences so I'll reply My problem is not that this blank cheque project is taking decades, though it is an issue. My problem is that so many other projects costing a small fraction of the money are cancelled without as much as a blink of the eye, yet this one with its bloated and escalating budget is untouchable.
If the money is found for this to the tune of a hundred billion pounds plus then lets find the money for more mundane but serious maintenance and development and not just one single route that is eyecatching.
If the money can be found to do the basics elsewhere then yes go on to do new lines like this.
Why not do all of them ?
I thought I covered that with the last paragraph?
Yes then I have no issue. I have no issue with HS2 itself, I have an issue with not doing the basics elsewhere while having a blank cheque for HS2. If the funds can be there for the basics elsewhere then yes absolutely HS2 can and should be funded.
We should be investing in infrastructure, not investing in one piece of infrastructure while letting everything else rot.
Indeed - but nobody is proposing such a binary approach.
Actually that's exactly what has been happening for years. Cancellation of other developments isn't hypothetical, its happening - and those other developments cost a fraction of HS2's ballooning budget.
Spoiler - under Mrs May nothing got done - even the free stuff.
You edited in the later sentences so I'll reply My problem is not that this blank cheque project is taking decades, though it is an issue. My problem is that so many other projects costing a small fraction of the money are cancelled without as much as a blink of the eye, yet this one with its bloated and escalating budget is untouchable.
If the money is found for this to the tune of a hundred billion pounds plus then lets find the money for more mundane but serious maintenance and development and not just one single route that is eyecatching.
If the money can be found to do the basics elsewhere then yes go on to do new lines like this.
Why not do all of them ?
issue. I have no issue with HS2 itself, I have an issue with not doing the basics elsewhere while having a blank cheque for HS2. If the funds can be there for the basics elsewhere then yes absolutely HS2 can and should be funded.
We should be investing in infrastructure, not investing in one piece of infrastructure while letting everything else rot.
Indeed - but nobody is proposing such a binary approach.
Actually that's exactly what has been happening for years. Cancellation of other developments isn't hypothetical, its happening - and those other developments cost a fraction of HS2's ballooning budget.
Spoiler - under Mrs May nothing got done - even the free stuff.
You edited in the later sentences so I'll reply My problem is not that this blank cheque project is taking decades, though it is an issue. My problem is that so many other projects costing a small fraction of the money are cancelled without as much as a blink of the eye, yet this one with its bloated and escalating budget is untouchable.
If the money is found for this to the tune of a hundred billion pounds plus then lets find the money for more mundane but serious maintenance and development and not just one single route that is eyecatching.
If the money can be found to do the basics elsewhere then yes go on to do new lines like this.
Why not do all of them ?
issue. I have no issue with HS2 itself, I have an issue with not doing the basics elsewhere while having a blank cheque for HS2. If the funds can be there for the basics elsewhere then yes absolutely HS2 can and should be funded.
We should be investing in infrastructure, not investing in one piece of infrastructure while letting everything else rot.
Indeed - but nobody is proposing such a binary approach.
Actually that's exactly what has been happening for years. Cancellation of other developments isn't hypothetical, its happening - and those other developments cost a fraction of HS2's ballooning budget.
Spoiler - under Mrs May nothing got done - even the free stuff.
Yes.May truly was the worst PM we have ever had.
Well let’s see what happens in Feb/ March.
The budget and reshuffle will be informative.
Indeed. If there are funds to do the basics then I have no qualms with HS2.
If OTOH we can't fund basic infrastructure developments and maintenance but can throw a hundred billion pounds at just a single media attention grabbing line then I think priorities are flawed.
You edited in the later sentences so I'll reply My problem is not that this blank cheque project is taking decades, though it is an issue. My problem is that so many other projects costing a small fraction of the money are cancelled without as much as a blink of the eye, yet this one with its bloated and escalating budget is untouchable.
If the money is found for this to the tune of a hundred billion pounds plus then lets find the money for more mundane but serious maintenance and development work on commuter routes that are creaking and not just one single route that is eyecatching.
If the money can be found to do the basics elsewhere then yes go on to do new lines like this.
Why not do all of them ?
I thought I covered that with the last paragraph?
Yes then I have no issue. I have no issue with HS2 itself, I have an issue with not doing the basics elsewhere while having a blank cheque for HS2. If the funds can be there for the basics elsewhere then yes absolutely HS2 can and should be funded.
We should be investing in infrastructure, not investing in one piece of infrastructure while letting everything else rot.
I'm sceptical of this argument, because very little infrastructure is the responsibility of central government.
Most roads, most bridges, etc., is the responsibility of local councils.
And I'm sure they are deferring and cancelling infrastructure projects. But they're doing that, not because of HS2, but because they suffer from an appalling combination of underfunded pension schemes and rising social care costs. If the government were to increase subsidies to councils, in most cases infrastructure wouldn't be on the top ten list of things they would spend the money on.
You could make a specific infrastructure spending grant to councils - but councils are deft at making those funds fungible. So long as local government is struggling (and boy, are they struggling) then they will not invest.
I still think Matthew Parris has it right in the Times. This is a transport corridor for the next two generations. Do it.
No, Simon Jenkins has it right in the Guardian: "the courage will not be to proceed but to call a halt to this nonsense, to do something better with so much money."
I note the £106 billion cost figure is dubious and a new figure "with contingency" is closer to £130 billion. Or £5,000 for every household in the UK.
Here's the issue:
- A problem is identified.
- Plans are drawn up to solve the problem.
- Because of the need to alleviate those affected by the proposed solution, costs go sky high.
- People now correctly adjudge that better things could be done with the money.
- The project is cancelled.
Rinse and repeat. And nothing ever gets built. Heathrow, HS2, etc. If we cancel this (and maybe we should), we'll spend three years deciding what else to build. Then people on the route will complain. Costs will go through the roof... Etc etc etc.
Nothing gets done because all the money is being set aside for one huge mega project instead of spreading it around the country on the hundreds of small and medium sized capital projects, for which a need has been identified but no funding has been forthcoming in over a decade of austerity, the first tranche of which could be started in next to no time and completed within half a decade.
Or if you're really stuck for ideas, just build 2 million council homes (through making available to councils a capital subsidy of £50,000 per home to offset the reduction from market rents and allowing them to borrow against the remaining future rental stream.)
But the councils won't build two million council homes, even if you offered them £50,000/home, because that would be unpopular with the voters in their area.
(Just think of the process. The land has to be acquired. At market rates. This basically eliminates the South East of England, because that land is really expensive. And it eliminates the centres of towns in the rest of the country. And how many voters want new social housing near them? There's a reason council houses aren't built anymore: it's because it's a vote loser.)
You edited in the later sentences so I'll reply My problem is not that this blank cheque project is taking decades, though it is an issue. My problem is that so many other projects costing a small fraction of the money are cancelled without as much as a blink of the eye, yet this one with its bloated and escalating budget is untouchable.
If the money is found for this to the tune of a hundred billion pounds plus then lets find the money for more mundane but serious maintenance and development work on commuter routes that are creaking and not just one single route that is eyecatching.
If the money can be found to do the basics elsewhere then yes go on to do new lines like this.
Why not do all of them ?
I thought I covered that with the last paragraph?
Yes then I have no issue. I have no issue with HS2 itself, I have an issue with not doing the basics elsewhere while having a blank cheque for HS2. If the funds can be there for the basics elsewhere then yes absolutely HS2 can and should be funded.
We should be investing in infrastructure, not investing in one piece of infrastructure while letting everything else rot.
I'm sceptical of this argument, because very little infrastructure is the responsibility of central government.
Most roads, most bridges, etc., is the responsibility of local councils.
And I'm sure they are deferring and cancelling infrastructure projects. But they're doing that, not because of HS2, but because they suffer from an appalling combination of underfunded pension schemes and rising social care costs. If the government were to increase subsidies to councils, in most cases infrastructure wouldn't be on the top ten list of things they would spend the money on.
You could make a specific infrastructure spending grant to councils - but councils are deft at making those funds fungible. So long as local government is struggling (and boy, are they struggling) then they will not invest.
All motorways and most A roads are directly maintained by central gvt or under contract on behalf of central government.
I still think Matthew Parris has it right in the Times. This is a transport corridor for the next two generations. Do it.
No, Simon Jenkins has it right in the Guardian: "the courage will not be to proceed but to call a halt to this nonsense, to do something better with so much money."
I note the £106 billion cost figure is dubious and a new figure "with contingency" is closer to £130 billion. Or £5,000 for every household in the UK.
Here's the issue:
- A problem is identified.
- Plans are drawn up to solve the problem.
- Because of the need to alleviate those affected by the proposed solution, costs go sky high.
- People now correctly adjudge that better things could be done with the money.
- The project is cancelled.
Rinse and repeat. And nothing ever gets built. Heathrow, HS2, etc. If we cancel this (and maybe we should), we'll spend three years deciding what else to build. Then people on the route will complain. Costs will go through the roof... Etc etc etc.
Nothing gets done because all the money is being set aside for one huge mega project instead of spreading it around the country on the hundreds of small and medium sized capital projects, for which a need has been identified but no funding has been forthcoming in over a decade of austerity, the first tranche of which could be started in next to no time and completed within half a decade.
Or if you're really stuck for ideas, just build 2 million council homes (through making available to councils a capital subsidy of £50,000 per home to offset the reduction from market rents and allowing them to borrow against the remaining future rental stream.)
“Remaining future rental stream” outside of London council housing is e\seen for what it is, and will never cover it’s costs. The local council in my area transferred over its stock to a housing association. The gvt wiped its debt. The debt was greater than when the houses were built fifty years previous.
You edited in the later sentences so I'll reply My problem is not that this blank cheque project is taking decades, though it is an issue. My problem is that so many other projects costing a small fraction of the money are cancelled without as much as a blink of the eye, yet this one with its bloated and escalating budget is untouchable.
If the money is found for this to the tune of a hundred billion pounds plus then lets find the money for more mundane but serious maintenance and development work on commuter routes that are creaking and not just one single route that is eyecatching.
If the money can be found to do the basics elsewhere then yes go on to do new lines like this.
Why not do all of them ?
I thought I covered that with the last paragraph?
Yes then I have no issue. I have no issue with HS2 itself, I have an issue with not doing the basics elsewhere while having a blank cheque for HS2. If the funds can be there for the basics elsewhere then yes absolutely HS2 can and should be funded.
We should be investing in infrastructure, not investing in one piece of infrastructure while letting everything else rot.
I'm sceptical of this argument, because very little infrastructure is the responsibility of central government.
Most roads, most bridges, etc., is the responsibility of local councils.
And I'm sure they are deferring and cancelling infrastructure projects. But they're doing that, not because of HS2, but because they suffer from an appalling combination of underfunded pension schemes and rising social care costs. If the government were to increase subsidies to councils, in most cases infrastructure wouldn't be on the top ten list of things they would spend the money on.
You could make a specific infrastructure spending grant to councils - but councils are deft at making those funds fungible. So long as local government is struggling (and boy, are they struggling) then they will not invest.
All motorways and most A roads are directly maintained by central gvt or under contract on behalf of central government.
Motorways are central government spend, but only a small proportion of "A Roads", I thought.
You edited in the later sentences so I'll reply My problem is not that this blank cheque project is taking decades, though it is an issue. My problem is that so many other projects costing a small fraction of the money are cancelled without as much as a blink of the eye, yet this one with its bloated and escalating budget is untouchable.
If the money is found for this to the tune of a hundred billion pounds plus then lets find the money for more mundane but serious maintenance and development work on commuter routes that are creaking and not just one single route that is eyecatching.
If the money can be found to do the basics elsewhere then yes go on to do new lines like this.
Why not do all of them ?
I thought I covered that with the last paragraph?
Yes then I have no issue. I have no issue with HS2 itself, I have an issue with not doing the basics elsewhere while having a blank cheque for HS2. If the funds can be there for the basics elsewhere then yes absolutely HS2 can and should be funded.
We should be investing in infrastructure, not investing in one piece of infrastructure while letting everything else rot.
I'm sceptical of this argument, because very little infrastructure is the responsibility of central government.
Most roads, most bridges, etc., is the responsibility of local councils.
And I'm sure they are deferring and cancelling infrastructure projects. But they're doing that, not because of HS2, but because they suffer from an appalling combination of underfunded pension schemes and rising social care costs. If the government were to increase subsidies to councils, in most cases infrastructure wouldn't be on the top ten list of things they would spend the money on.
You could make a specific infrastructure spending grant to councils - but councils are deft at making those funds fungible. So long as local government is struggling (and boy, are they struggling) then they will not invest.
All motorways and most A roads are directly maintained by central gvt or under contract on behalf of central government.
Des Moines Register just endorsed Elizabeth Warren. That is a huge coup for her.
It is.
But she needs to beat Sanders in Iowa to have any chance of winning the nomination. Because Sanders is a lot stronger than her in New Hampshire. And then Biden is best placed in South Carolina. She *needs* the momentum of winning Iowa to be the Left's choice.
I still think Matthew Parris has it right in the Times. This is a transport corridor for the next two generations. Do it.
That was a great article by Parris.
Johnson is going to have to write two essays, possibly four to decide this one.
It is a massive decision for him and his administration.
I think he'll go ahead with it but also give the green light to a new east-west line from Liverpool to Hull.
The economic case is strong to Leeds, but much harder for Hull.
But then that's typical chicken-and-egg problem with these things. Better transport links might result in more economic activity and therefore more demand for transport. Or it might be a terrible white elephant where billions are spent on a service that no-one uses.
And that's why people keep coming back to HS2. There clearly is demand for more capacity (at peak times at least) on the Western spine of England.
Comments
If the current plans are crap then make them better - invest in decent infrastructure for once.
https://twitter.com/mhdksafa/status/1221191396683665409?s=20
I do object to cancelling all sorts of other infrastructure across the North and rest of the country because there's no money for it, but having a blank cheque running over a hundred billion pounds to avoid poor dear going to London having a bit of overcrowding on one line while every other transport can go to hell.
To Edinburgh even.
- A problem is identified.
- Plans are drawn up to solve the problem.
- Because of the need to alleviate those affected by the proposed solution, costs go sky high.
- People now correctly adjudge that better things could be done with the money.
- The project is cancelled.
Rinse and repeat. And nothing ever gets built. Heathrow, HS2, etc. If we cancel this (and maybe we should), we'll spend three years deciding what else to build. Then people on the route will complain. Costs will go through the roof... Etc etc etc.
Electrification of much of the northern rail network is either years behind schedule or cancelled because of a lack of money.
Its like saying that you can't afford to get bread and milk in your groceries but can afford Dom Perignon at the restaurant.
It’s selfish to object to it because the benefits are a decade off.
Gordon Brown borrowed £157 billion in a single year - basically stolen from future generations to fund his PM ambitions.
As I said - in the context of a Labour government its peanuts - and spent over 10-15 years its small peanuts.
My problem is not that this blank cheque project is taking decades, though it is an issue. My problem is that so many other projects costing a small fraction of the money are cancelled without as much as a blink of the eye, yet this one with its bloated and escalating budget is untouchable.
If the money is found for this to the tune of a hundred billion pounds plus then lets find the money for more mundane but just as serious maintenance and development work on commuter routes that are creaking and not just one single route that is eyecatching.
If the money can be found to do the basics elsewhere then yes go on to do new lines like this.
Yes then I have no issue. I have no issue with HS2 itself, I have an issue with not doing the basics elsewhere while having a blank cheque for HS2. If the funds can be there for the basics elsewhere then yes absolutely HS2 can and should be funded.
We should be investing in infrastructure, not investing in one piece of infrastructure while letting everything else rot.
Or if you're really stuck for ideas, just build 2 million council homes (through making available to councils a capital subsidy of £50,000 per home to offset the reduction from market rents and allowing them to borrow against the remaining future rental stream.)
The budget and reshuffle will be informative.
If OTOH we can't fund basic infrastructure developments and maintenance but can throw a hundred billion pounds at just a single media attention grabbing line then I think priorities are flawed.
Is that unreasonable? Its not NIMBYism.
Most roads, most bridges, etc., is the responsibility of local councils.
And I'm sure they are deferring and cancelling infrastructure projects. But they're doing that, not because of HS2, but because they suffer from an appalling combination of underfunded pension schemes and rising social care costs. If the government were to increase subsidies to councils, in most cases infrastructure wouldn't be on the top ten list of things they would spend the money on.
You could make a specific infrastructure spending grant to councils - but councils are deft at making those funds fungible. So long as local government is struggling (and boy, are they struggling) then they will not invest.
(Just think of the process. The land has to be acquired. At market rates. This basically eliminates the South East of England, because that land is really expensive. And it eliminates the centres of towns in the rest of the country. And how many voters want new social housing near them? There's a reason council houses aren't built anymore: it's because it's a vote loser.)
But let me check the sums.
I would not have expected that.
* I suspect this number is central government spending on roads.
But she needs to beat Sanders in Iowa to have any chance of winning the nomination. Because Sanders is a lot stronger than her in New Hampshire. And then Biden is best placed in South Carolina. She *needs* the momentum of winning Iowa to be the Left's choice.
But then that's typical chicken-and-egg problem with these things. Better transport links might result in more economic activity and therefore more demand for transport. Or it might be a terrible white elephant where billions are spent on a service that no-one uses.
And that's why people keep coming back to HS2. There clearly is demand for more capacity (at peak times at least) on the Western spine of England.