Johnson is trying to spend his way out of trouble through the self-harm effects of Brexit. It might be the right strategy to try and correct a daft one, and it could just work. Some might observe that sensible economics and monetarism is dead. Someone ought to tell those Tories that sleep with a picture of the Blessed Margaret under their pillows!
Basic problem, approving HS2 is a blank cheque. If it costs £150bn, the Govt just has to suck it up.
It won't surprise me if it costs at least that.
But I don't see how the Govt. cans it. It does need to have some very savvy PR selling it far better than has been done to date, however. It has allowed the narrative to develop of it being all about London. It has to make a big push on it being about additional capacity for the whole rail network.
Oh, and don't even TRY to sell us the "every £x spent mean an added £x + y benefit to the economy" line. Nobody is buying it.
Basic problem, approving HS2 is a blank cheque. If it costs £150bn, the Govt just has to suck it up.
It won't surprise me if it costs at least that.
But I don't see how the Govt. cans it. It does need to have some very savvy PR selling it far better than has been done to date, however. It has allowed the narrative to develop of it being all about London. It has to make a big push on it being about additional capacity for the whole rail network.
Oh, and don't even TRY to sell us the "every £x spent mean an added £x + y benefit to the economy" line. Nobody is buying it.
Firstly, I expect that the Overtree report will say that the costs are estimated to be £86bn, with £20bn to cover any currently unforeseen cost over runs, but that will probably get little coverage.
Even at £106bn it has a £1.40 benefit for every £1 cost, that has already been leaked.
Finally, the alternatives are far worse in terms of costs and benefits and unless you have decided to write off the infrastructure that the business and political community of the north are crying out for, you are going to have to do something very radical to increase capacity up and down and across the countries railways.
Johnson is trying to spend his way out of trouble through the self-harm effects of Brexit. It might be the right strategy to try and correct a daft one, and it could just work. Some might observe that sensible economics and monetarism is dead. Someone ought to tell those Tories that sleep with a picture of the Blessed Margaret under their pillows!
And if it does eff up the economy, it will leave whoever is next in government a hell of a mess to sort out...
Johnson is trying to spend his way out of trouble through the self-harm effects of Brexit. It might be the right strategy to try and correct a daft one, and it could just work. Some might observe that sensible economics and monetarism is dead. Someone ought to tell those Tories that sleep with a picture of the Blessed Margaret under their pillows!
And if it does eff up the economy, it will leave whoever is next in government a hell of a mess to sort out...
He really is stealing Labour's clothes.
Over spending normally catches up with one in the end. The Tories will have their turn to leave a note saying "sorry there is no money left"
We are still a great nation and it is time those in the EU move on and construct a friendly future
We have demeaned our once proud status of a "great nation" by mean mindedness and petty small minded nationalism. It will take us a long time to recover our international reputation, probably longer than it will for the US post-Trump.
Johnson is trying to spend his way out of trouble through the self-harm effects of Brexit. It might be the right strategy to try and correct a daft one, and it could just work. Some might observe that sensible economics and monetarism is dead. Someone ought to tell those Tories that sleep with a picture of the Blessed Margaret under their pillows!
And if it does eff up the economy, it will leave whoever is next in government a hell of a mess to sort out...
He really is stealing Labour's clothes.
It will not manifest financial problems over the next decade or so
We are still a great nation and it is time those in the EU move on and construct a friendly future
We have demeaned our once proud status of a "great nation" by mean mindedness and petty small minded nationalism. It will take us a long time to recover our international reputation, probably longer than it will for the US post-Trump.
It has upset many for certain but equally it is a chance to forge a new outward looking nation beyond the narrow view that all is good and great in the EU
The railways need accountability, not nationalisation. Oh, hold on; not that bit. These bits:
We will build Northern Powerhouse Rail between Leeds and Manchester and then focus on Liverpool, Tees Valley, Hull, Sheffield and Newcastle.
We will invest in the Midlands Rail Hub, strengthening rail links including those between Birmingham, Leicester, Nottingham, Coventry, Derby, Hereford and Worcester.
We will also invest in improving train lines to the South West and East Anglia.
We will give city regions the funding to upgrade their bus, tram and train services to make them as good as London’s
HS2 is a great ambition, but will now cost at least £81 billion and will not reach Leeds or Manchester until as late as 2040. We will consider the findings of the Oakervee review into costs and timings and work with leaders of the Midlands and the North to decide the optimal outcome.
we will restore many of the Beeching lines, reconnecting smaller towns such as Fleetwood and Willenhall
The railways need accountability, not nationalisation. Oh, hold on; not that bit. These bits:
We will build Northern Powerhouse Rail between Leeds and Manchester and then focus on Liverpool, Tees Valley, Hull, Sheffield and Newcastle.
We will invest in the Midlands Rail Hub, strengthening rail links including those between Birmingham, Leicester, Nottingham, Coventry, Derby, Hereford and Worcester.
We will also invest in improving train lines to the South West and East Anglia.
We will give city regions the funding to upgrade their bus, tram and train services to make them as good as London’s
HS2 is a great ambition, but will now cost at least £81 billion and will not reach Leeds or Manchester until as late as 2040. We will consider the findings of the Oakervee review into costs and timings and work with leaders of the Midlands and the North to decide the optimal outcome.
we will restore many of the Beeching lines, reconnecting smaller towns such as Fleetwood and Willenhall
Yep and those who continue to oppose it need to accept the outcome of a democratic vote, as we are so often reminded.
Oakervee review provided and optimal outcome seemingly decided.
Time for people to end their stropping and accept the democratic decision.
And, by denying a vote for so long on various integrationist treaties of the EU, ultimately guaranteed we’d have one on full membership instead. He also turbocharged its chances with a policy of unlimited free movement from the accession countries in 2004.
It does need to have some very savvy PR selling it far better than has been done to date, however.
Yes "£1,060,000,000 for 35 minutes off Birmingham to London" doesn't remotely do the project justice - the selling point should be on the freed up capacity on the existing WCML - with the shorter journeys on HS2 as a bonus.
And, by denying a vote for so long on various integrationist treaties of the EU, ultimately guaranteed we’d have one on full membership instead. He also turbocharged its chances with a policy of unlimited free movement from the accession countries in 2004.
Epic fail.
From the article:
"Blair was later forced into offering a referendum on the EU Constitutional Treaty in 2004 because Charlie Kennedy supported Michael Howard’s call for one and a good number of Labour MPs would have voted for the plebiscite.
France saved Blair by voting down the constitution in 2005. Perhaps if Blair had held a referendum then and lost, as President Chirac did in France, that might have taught David Cameron that holding plebiscites on Europe could only produce one outcome."
Wow. If he carries on pissing off Trump, building tons of infrastructure, boosting the north, and bringing transport & utilities back where they belong - into public ownership - I will have to seriously consider re-badging him from dodgy brand "Boris" to PM Boris Johnson, Good Socialist, Great Man.
And, by denying a vote for so long on various integrationist treaties of the EU, ultimately guaranteed we’d have one on full membership instead. He also turbocharged its chances with a policy of unlimited free movement from the accession countries in 2004.
Epic fail.
From the article:
"Blair was later forced into offering a referendum on the EU Constitutional Treaty in 2004 because Charlie Kennedy supported Michael Howard’s call for one and a good number of Labour MPs would have voted for the plebiscite.
France saved Blair by voting down the constitution in 2005. Perhaps if Blair had held a referendum then and lost, as President Chirac did in France, that might have taught David Cameron that holding plebiscites on Europe could only produce one outcome."
If it had been held and lost then concessions would have been given on Lisbon (the original burner for Cameron) and the heat taken out of the balloon.
The idea that simply denying any vote whatsoever on the EU ad infinitum was a serious political answer to euroscepticism in the UK is for the birds.
It does need to have some very savvy PR selling it far better than has been done to date, however.
Yes "£1,060,000,000 for 35 minutes off Birmingham to London" doesn't remotely do the project justice - the selling point should be on the freed up capacity on the existing WCML - with the shorter journeys on HS2 as a bonus.
Which I think too be fair is what most connected to the scheme have been saying.
However, if you are an editor of a national newspaper and live in the Chilterns why not stick with speed as the issue, therefore undermining the real reasons the scheme is planned?
If you look at HS2 part of the DfT website it is full of capacity reports and news releases, never picked up by the media.
It's part of the problem in this country, reality is someone living in the Chilterns has a much better chance of having the ability to affect the nations mood and government policy than someone living in an inner city council estate in Manchester.
The positive affect on the poor person in Manchester never gets a look in but all the negatives for those 'poor' people in the Chilterns never leaves the coverage.
It does need to have some very savvy PR selling it far better than has been done to date, however.
Yes "£1,060,000,000 for 35 minutes off Birmingham to London" doesn't remotely do the project justice - the selling point should be on the freed up capacity on the existing WCML - with the shorter journeys on HS2 as a bonus.
Which I think too be fair is what most connected to the scheme have been saying.
However, if you are an editor of a national newspaper and live in the Chilterns why not stick with speed as the issue, therefore undermining the real reasons the scheme is planned?
If you look at HS2 part of the DfT website it is full of capacity reports and news releases, never picked up by the media.
It's part of the problem in this country, reality is someone living in the Chilterns has a much better chance of having the ability to affect the nations mood and government policy than someone living in an inner city council estate in Manchester.
The positive affect on the poor person in Manchester never gets a look in but all the negatives for those 'poor' people in the Chilterns never leaves the coverage.
I do think that linking the benefits of HS2 to the positive effect for a poor person in Manchester is hard to argue in precise beneficial terms which will be seen as making a difference to that person (or more accurately, their grandchildren).
Cameron lost narrowly despite having, compared to Blair a decade earlier, a much harder situation. There was no major UKIP surge in Blair's time. There was no migrant crisis. There was no major party leader batting for both sides (Corbyn).
Part of the reason we ended up voting to leave was because those who might've voted either way saw that Labour was perfectly happy to promise a referendum during a campaign and then not hold one once they were safely ensconced in office.
The actions of Blair and Brown encouraged the vote to leave. If they'd held the Lisbon Treaty referendum it would've been lost, a strong sceptical signal would've been sent, and we'd still be in the EU.
It does need to have some very savvy PR selling it far better than has been done to date, however.
Yes "£1,060,000,000 for 35 minutes off Birmingham to London" doesn't remotely do the project justice - the selling point should be on the freed up capacity on the existing WCML - with the shorter journeys on HS2 as a bonus.
Which I think too be fair is what most connected to the scheme have been saying.
However, if you are an editor of a national newspaper and live in the Chilterns why not stick with speed as the issue, therefore undermining the real reasons the scheme is planned?
If you look at HS2 part of the DfT website it is full of capacity reports and news releases, never picked up by the media.
It's part of the problem in this country, reality is someone living in the Chilterns has a much better chance of having the ability to affect the nations mood and government policy than someone living in an inner city council estate in Manchester.
The positive affect on the poor person in Manchester never gets a look in but all the negatives for those 'poor' people in the Chilterns never leaves the coverage.
I do think that linking the benefits of HS2 to the positive effect for a poor person in Manchester is hard to argue in precise beneficial terms which will be seen as making a difference to that person (or more accurately, their grandchildren).
I consider what the economy of Manchester would be without the WCML or M6.
HS2 is simply the next step on that path, those opposed to the scheme seem to suggest that Manchester (and other places) would not be adversely affected if the WCML and M6 had never existed.
Wow. If he carries on pissing off Trump, building tons of infrastructure, boosting the north, and bringing transport & utilities back where they belong - into public ownership - I will have to seriously consider re-badging him from dodgy brand "Boris" to PM Boris Johnson, Good Socialist, Great Man.
I have said repeatedly that Boris is not a right wing tory, he is very much a liberal and he has not surprised me in his actions so far. I did not vote for him, and at one time I resigned my membership as a result of his action against dissenting conservatives but that changed when he re-instated most of them, and to be honest he has impressed me on the upside since the GE
His optimistic can do attitude is infectious and is the right receipe at the present time
I remember the BBC doing a documentary shortly after the Brexit vote where they interviewed the EU top brass about why Brexit occurred, what the future of the EU was and why the rise/ how to tackle the likes of 5 Star in Italy.
The response was a bit like the hard left types you already respond to claims socialism never works, with we don't have a proper european union, the only way future is a much more integrated closer nit EU with more powers centralized.
It does need to have some very savvy PR selling it far better than has been done to date, however.
Yes "£1,060,000,000 for 35 minutes off Birmingham to London" doesn't remotely do the project justice - the selling point should be on the freed up capacity on the existing WCML - with the shorter journeys on HS2 as a bonus.
Which I think too be fair is what most connected to the scheme have been saying.
However, if you are an editor of a national newspaper and live in the Chilterns why not stick with speed as the issue, therefore undermining the real reasons the scheme is planned?
If you look at HS2 part of the DfT website it is full of capacity reports and news releases, never picked up by the media.
It's part of the problem in this country, reality is someone living in the Chilterns has a much better chance of having the ability to affect the nations mood and government policy than someone living in an inner city council estate in Manchester.
The positive affect on the poor person in Manchester never gets a look in but all the negatives for those 'poor' people in the Chilterns never leaves the coverage.
I do think that linking the benefits of HS2 to the positive effect for a poor person in Manchester is hard to argue in precise beneficial terms which will be seen as making a difference to that person (or more accurately, their grandchildren).
I consider what the economy of Manchester would be without the WCML or M6.
HS2 is simply the next step on that path, those opposed to the scheme seem to suggest that Manchester (and other places) would not be adversely affected if the WCML and M6 had never existed.
What is more Manchester's growth needs to be fed by faster connectivity to Liverpool, Leeds and, particularly, Sheffield and points between. NPR is a bit hotch potch for my taste.
Had it been addressed 15 years ago, we'd have been talking about a Ruhr model. Now, I tend to think Manchester would be a much more dominant focal point if connectivity improved.
Put any new (electric??) airport somewhere north of London along HS2, and the infrastructure job for the north would be substantially done.
It does need to have some very savvy PR selling it far better than has been done to date, however.
Yes "£1,060,000,000 for 35 minutes off Birmingham to London" doesn't remotely do the project justice - the selling point should be on the freed up capacity on the existing WCML - with the shorter journeys on HS2 as a bonus.
If only the cost were a mere £1,060,000,000.
As opposed to a hundred times that, at £106,000,000,000.
Or more if the costs continue to escalate, with a figure of £130,000,000,000 including contingencies now being mooted.
Most of those travelling from the West Midlands to London will in fact see a time saving of 0 minutes, not least from the Black Country, since Curzon Street is so remote from the rest of the creaking West Midlands transport hub centred on New Street that most will find it quicker (and cheaper) to continue to use the WCML or Chiltern Line. As for the WCML capacity issues, they are largely contrived, which is why they were only brought to the fore once the original business case collapsed.
Meanwhile, here's the sort of thing that people in the West Midlands would actually benefit from, delivering transport benefits far more quickly at a tiny fraction of the cost, on the sort of transport links that the people and businesses of the region actually rely upon.
Re the discussion earlier about those coming back from China and self-isolation vs the government putting them into quarantine.
Seems that some crossed wires in the media, those being asked to self-isolate are those coming back from areas other than Wuhan. Those the government are evacuating from Wuhan are going into quarantine.
BBC News to close 450 posts as part of £80m savings drive .... BBC suspend the turn off red button service that costs £39m a year to run
This is like when BBC had choice of closing down the likes of BBC Three and bottled it. You think Amazon, Netflix or Sky would hesitate to keep a service that is used by bugger all people and will only continue to decline every single week.
I remember the BBC doing a documentary shortly after the Brexit vote where they interviewed the EU top brass about why Brexit occurred, what the future of the EU was and why the rise/ how to tackle the likes of 5 Star in Italy.
The response was a bit like the hard left types you already respond to claims socialism never works, with we don't have a proper european union, the only way future is a much more integrated closer nit EU with more powers centralized.
It is a valid criticism, but by the same token I suggest that when Brexit turns out to be the inevitable pile of shit that almost all economists believe, people such as yourself will be saying the reason was that it wasn't pure and Brexity enough 😂😂
I remember the BBC doing a documentary shortly after the Brexit vote where they interviewed the EU top brass about why Brexit occurred, what the future of the EU was and why the rise/ how to tackle the likes of 5 Star in Italy.
The response was a bit like the hard left types you already respond to claims socialism never works, with we don't have a proper european union, the only way future is a much more integrated closer nit EU with more powers centralized.
It is a valid criticism, but by the same token I suggest that when Brexit turns out to be the inevitable pile of shit that almost all economists believe, people such as yourself will be saying the reason was that it wasn't pure and Brexity enough 😂😂
You know I voted Remain right? I wrote a big post the other day about my thoughts on it. Cliff notes, I don't buy the end of the world stuff, but it is very difficult task ahead and we are more than likely to swap one lot of red tape for another. If new red tape is better than old red tape, is totally uncertain.
If we voted to Remain, it wasn't for the status quo, it was for ever closer union. Now if in 20-30 years being in a protected trading block against the likes of what will be the global superpower of China is better than fighting out in the world, but being able to be a bit more nibble, who knows.
Cameron lost narrowly despite having, compared to Blair a decade earlier, a much harder situation. There was no major UKIP surge in Blair's time. There was no migrant crisis. There was no major party leader batting for both sides (Corbyn).
Part of the reason we ended up voting to leave was because those who might've voted either way saw that Labour was perfectly happy to promise a referendum during a campaign and then not hold one once they were safely ensconced in office.
The actions of Blair and Brown encouraged the vote to leave. If they'd held the Lisbon Treaty referendum it would've been lost, a strong sceptical signal would've been sent, and we'd still be in the EU.
There was, however, a big issue with asylum seekers during Blair’s premiership. The arrival of workers from the EU Accession States from 2004 onwards was the last straw, I suspect, for many people. Had Blair tackled asylum claims more effectively then the arrival of hard-working Poles etc might not have proved such a problem. By then people felt that there was simply no effective control over any form of migration into the country. FoM became the scapegoat for many of those concerns.
BBC News to close 450 posts as part of £80m savings drive .... BBC suspend the turn off red button service that costs £39m a year to run
This is like when BBC had choice of closing down the likes of BBC Three and bottled it. You think Amazon, Netflix or Sky would hesitate to keep a service that is used by bugger all people and will only continue to decline every single week.
BBC News not been the same since my departure in 1984
Cameron lost narrowly despite having, compared to Blair a decade earlier, a much harder situation. There was no major UKIP surge in Blair's time. There was no migrant crisis. There was no major party leader batting for both sides (Corbyn).
Part of the reason we ended up voting to leave was because those who might've voted either way saw that Labour was perfectly happy to promise a referendum during a campaign and then not hold one once they were safely ensconced in office.
The actions of Blair and Brown encouraged the vote to leave. If they'd held the Lisbon Treaty referendum it would've been lost, a strong sceptical signal would've been sent, and we'd still be in the EU.
There was, however, a big issue with asylum seekers during Blair’s premiership. The arrival of workers from the EU Accession States from 2004 onwards was the last straw, I suspect, for many people. Had Blair tackled asylum claims more effectively then the arrival of hard-working Poles etc might not have proved such a problem. By then people felt that there was simply no effective control over any form of migration into the country. FoM became the scapegoat for many of those concerns.
I suspect if Blair had also followed the likes of Germany and put in place a transition period, in which numbers were limited, that would have helped against such feeling.
I remember the BBC doing a documentary shortly after the Brexit vote where they interviewed the EU top brass about why Brexit occurred, what the future of the EU was and why the rise/ how to tackle the likes of 5 Star in Italy.
The response was a bit like the hard left types you already respond to claims socialism never works, with we don't have a proper european union, the only way future is a much more integrated closer nit EU with more powers centralized.
It is a valid criticism, but by the same token I suggest that when Brexit turns out to be the inevitable pile of shit that almost all economists believe, people such as yourself will be saying the reason was that it wasn't pure and Brexity enough 😂😂
You know I voted Remain right? I wrote a big post the other day about my thoughts on it. Cliff notes, I don't buy the end of the world stuff, but it is very difficult task ahead and we are more than likely to swap one lot of red tape for another. If new red tape is better than old red tape, is totally uncertain.
If we voted to Remain, it wasn't for the status quo, it was for ever closer union. Now if in 20-30 years being in a protected trading block against the likes of what will be the global superpower of China is better than fighting out in the world, but being able to be a bit more nibble, who knows.
Ever closer union is a meaningless phrase that is not/was not on the agendas of the genuinely powerful in the EU, i.e. the Council of Ministers. It had become more and more redundant. It was like Labour's Clause 4 before Blair removed it. Thanks to us taking an isolationist view for very dubious benefit to ourselves, ever closer union has slightly more momentum in the remaining 27, but there will continue to be about 27 different views as to what it means.
The EU's strength is in it's weakness; it cannot and will not become the bogeyman that Farage et al conned people in this country into believing because it is simply inefficient in it's ambition.
BBC News to close 450 posts as part of £80m savings drive .... BBC suspend the turn off red button service that costs £39m a year to run
This is like when BBC had choice of closing down the likes of BBC Three and bottled it. You think Amazon, Netflix or Sky would hesitate to keep a service that is used by bugger all people and will only continue to decline every single week.
BBC News not been the same since my departure in 1984
Ah, that's the problem! I've always wondered why it suddenly deteriorated.
I remember the BBC doing a documentary shortly after the Brexit vote where they interviewed the EU top brass about why Brexit occurred, what the future of the EU was and why the rise/ how to tackle the likes of 5 Star in Italy.
The response was a bit like the hard left types you already respond to claims socialism never works, with we don't have a proper european union, the only way future is a much more integrated closer nit EU with more powers centralized.
It is a valid criticism, but by the same token I suggest that when Brexit turns out to be the inevitable pile of shit that almost all economists believe, people such as yourself will be saying the reason was that it wasn't pure and Brexity enough 😂😂
You know I voted Remain right? I wrote a big post the other day about my thoughts on it. Cliff notes, I don't buy the end of the world stuff, but it is very difficult task ahead and we are more than likely to swap one lot of red tape for another. If new red tape is better than old red tape, is totally uncertain.
If we voted to Remain, it wasn't for the status quo, it was for ever closer union. Now if in 20-30 years being in a protected trading block against the likes of what will be the global superpower of China is better than fighting out in the world, but being able to be a bit more nibble, who knows.
Ever closer union is a meaningless phrase that is not/was not on the agendas of the genuinely powerful in the EU, i.e. the Council of Ministers. It had become more and more redundant. It was like Labour's Clause 4 before Blair removed it. Thanks to us taking an isolationist view for very dubious benefit to ourselves, ever closer union has slightly more momentum in the remaining 27, but there will continue to be about 27 different views as to what it means.
The EU's strength is in it's weakness; it cannot and will not become the bogeyman that Farage et al conned people in this country into believing because it is simply inefficient in it's ambition.
Given the realistic situation of the world, ever closer union would be coming up regardless. It is the obvious way to combat the likes of China, to form an even closer more protected trading block.
It isn't just Brexit, as I said in the BBC documentary straight after Brexit, the EU top brass were already talking about this being the only way to deal with inequalities within the different EU countries, which was seeing a rise of populist parties.
I remember the BBC doing a documentary shortly after the Brexit vote where they interviewed the EU top brass about why Brexit occurred, what the future of the EU was and why the rise/ how to tackle the likes of 5 Star in Italy.
The response was a bit like the hard left types you already respond to claims socialism never works, with we don't have a proper european union, the only way future is a much more integrated closer nit EU with more powers centralized.
It is a valid criticism, but by the same token I suggest that when Brexit turns out to be the inevitable pile of shit that almost all economists believe, people such as yourself will be saying the reason was that it wasn't pure and Brexity enough 😂😂
You know I voted Remain right? I wrote a big post the other day about my thoughts on it. Cliff notes, I don't buy the end of the world stuff, but it is very difficult task ahead and we are more than likely to swap one lot of red tape for another. If new red tape is better than old red tape, is totally uncertain.
If we voted to Remain, it wasn't for the status quo, it was for ever closer union. Now if in 20-30 years being in a protected trading block against the likes of what will be the global superpower of China is better than fighting out in the world, but being able to be a bit more nibble, who knows.
That is a priceless typo. I guess it is Year of the Rat...
It does need to have some very savvy PR selling it far better than has been done to date, however.
Yes "£1,060,000,000 for 35 minutes off Birmingham to London" doesn't remotely do the project justice - the selling point should be on the freed up capacity on the existing WCML - with the shorter journeys on HS2 as a bonus.
If only the cost were a mere £1,060,000,000.
As opposed to a hundred times that, at £106,000,000,000.
Or more if the costs continue to escalate, with a figure of £130,000,000,000 including contingencies now being mooted.
Most of those travelling from the West Midlands to London will in fact see a time saving of 0 minutes, not least from the Black Country, since Curzon Street is so remote from the rest of the creaking West Midlands transport hub centred on New Street that most will find it quicker (and cheaper) to continue to use the WCML or Chiltern Line. As for the WCML capacity issues, they are largely contrived, which is why they were only brought to the fore once the original business case collapsed.
Meanwhile, here's the sort of thing that people in the West Midlands would actually benefit from, delivering transport benefits far more quickly at a tiny fraction of the cost, on the sort of transport links that the people and businesses of the region actually rely upon.
The ITV newsreader Alastair Stewart is stepping down from his presenting duties following “errors of judgment in Alastair’s use of social media”, ITN has said.
There was, however, a big issue with asylum seekers during Blair’s premiership. The arrival of workers from the EU Accession States from 2004 onwards was the last straw, I suspect, for many people. Had Blair tackled asylum claims more effectively then the arrival of hard-working Poles etc might not have proved such a problem. By then people felt that there was simply no effective control over any form of migration into the country. FoM became the scapegoat for many of those concerns.
One of the big problems back then, as I recall, was that people felt they "couldn't talk about it".
But not to worry because they have certainly made up for it since.
Cameron lost narrowly despite having, compared to Blair a decade earlier, a much harder situation. There was no major UKIP surge in Blair's time. There was no migrant crisis. There was no major party leader batting for both sides (Corbyn).
Part of the reason we ended up voting to leave was because those who might've voted either way saw that Labour was perfectly happy to promise a referendum during a campaign and then not hold one once they were safely ensconced in office.
The actions of Blair and Brown encouraged the vote to leave. If they'd held the Lisbon Treaty referendum it would've been lost, a strong sceptical signal would've been sent, and we'd still be in the EU.
There was, however, a big issue with asylum seekers during Blair’s premiership. The arrival of workers from the EU Accession States from 2004 onwards was the last straw, I suspect, for many people. Had Blair tackled asylum claims more effectively then the arrival of hard-working Poles etc might not have proved such a problem. By then people felt that there was simply no effective control over any form of migration into the country. FoM became the scapegoat for many of those concerns.
I suspect if Blair had also followed the likes of Germany and put in place a transition period, in which numbers were limited, that would have helped against such feeling.
Indeed Merkel said Germany introduced transition controls for 7 years even if it meant no short term boost to the economy to ensure social cohesion. Blair did not and eventually reaped the whirlwind as a diehard Remainer. When Merkel tried to get some controls on free movement for Cameron Eastern Europe vetoed it
Cameron lost narrowly despite having, compared to Blair a decade earlier, a much harder situation. There was no major UKIP surge in Blair's time. There was no migrant crisis. There was no major party leader batting for both sides (Corbyn).
Part of the reason we ended up voting to leave was because those who might've voted either way saw that Labour was perfectly happy to promise a referendum during a campaign and then not hold one once they were safely ensconced in office.
The actions of Blair and Brown encouraged the vote to leave. If they'd held the Lisbon Treaty referendum it would've been lost, a strong sceptical signal would've been sent, and we'd still be in the EU.
There was, however, a big issue with asylum seekers during Blair’s premiership. The arrival of workers from the EU Accession States from 2004 onwards was the last straw, I suspect, for many people. Had Blair tackled asylum claims more effectively then the arrival of hard-working Poles etc might not have proved such a problem. By then people felt that there was simply no effective control over any form of migration into the country. FoM became the scapegoat for many of those concerns.
I suspect if Blair had also followed the likes of Germany and put in place a transition period, in which numbers were limited, that would have helped against such feeling.
Yes - that might have helped.
My personal view though is that we were right to let Poles and others in. The accession of those states - after the terrible time they had under Soviet control - was a wonderful moment and achievement in European history. To keep their people at arms’ length seemed petty and unworthy, especially when so many of them - Poles particularly - had fought alongside us in WW2 and been betrayed at the end of that war. Something mean-spirited about Germany’s exclusion of them, I felt. If there was one area to which the Germans owed a moral debt of honour, it was to Poland and the Baltic states.
The issue of migration - asylum-seeking and family reunions and cousin marriages in Pakistani communities - should have been dealt with much earlier and more effectively. Then it would have been easier to persuade people of the benefits of FoM. That and not coming up with such obviously bogus figures as 13,000 migrants.
It was the sense that the government had lost control - or had deliberately abandoned all pretence of control - long before 2005 that did for the government. Hence, also, the brilliance of the “Take Back Control” slogan.
The ITV newsreader Alastair Stewart is stepping down from his presenting duties following “errors of judgment in Alastair’s use of social media”, ITN has said.
Indeed Merkel said Germany introduced transition controls for 7 years even if it meant no short term boost to the economy to ensure social cohesion. Blair did not and eventually reaped the whirlwind as a diehard Remainer. When Merkel tried to get some controls on free movement for Cameron Eastern Europe vetoed it
That sounds on the surface to be a possibly fair point.
But on the BIG one -
Are the first pangs of doubt stirring yet as to the impossibility of Bernie beating the Donald? Bet they are.
"We know that every contested nomination since 1972 has gone to a candidate that finished first, second, or third place in Iowa, then either first or second in New Hampshire. We also know that the last four Democratic nominations have gone to the winner of the Iowa caucus. Theoretically at least, that means in the next three weeks, the race should be down to two viable candidates."
"...maybe it's time to throw out those traditional yardsticks."
"Only a lunatic would try to predict a Democratic nominee under these circumstances and I certainly won’t. But put me down for Biden with a 50 percent chance and Bloomberg at 25 percent, with 25 percent split between Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and who the heck else."
Cameron lost narrowly despite having, compared to Blair a decade earlier, a much harder situation. There was no major UKIP surge in Blair's time. There was no migrant crisis. There was no major party leader batting for both sides (Corbyn).
Part of the reason we ended up voting to leave was because those who might've voted either way saw that Labour was perfectly happy to promise a referendum during a campaign and then not hold one once they were safely ensconced in office.
The actions of Blair and Brown encouraged the vote to leave. If they'd held the Lisbon Treaty referendum it would've been lost, a strong sceptical signal would've been sent, and we'd still be in the EU.
There was, however, a big issue with asylum seekers during Blair’s premiership. The arrival of workers from the EU Accession States from 2004 onwards was the last straw, I suspect, for many people. Had Blair tackled asylum claims more effectively then the arrival of hard-working Poles etc might not have proved such a problem. By then people felt that there was simply no effective control over any form of migration into the country. FoM became the scapegoat for many of those concerns.
I suspect if Blair had also followed the likes of Germany and put in place a transition period, in which numbers were limited, that would have helped against such feeling.
Indeed Merkel said Germany introduced transition controls for 7 years even if it meant no short term boost to the economy to ensure social cohesion. Blair did not and eventually reaped the whirlwind as a diehard Remainer. When Merkel tried to get some controls on free movement for Cameron Eastern Europe vetoed it
She didn’t give a toss about social cohesion when she let in a million Syrians and others at a moment’s notice.
Britain did not use the controls it had under EU law. Anyway all water under the bridge now.
Indeed Merkel said Germany introduced transition controls for 7 years even if it meant no short term boost to the economy to ensure social cohesion. Blair did not and eventually reaped the whirlwind as a diehard Remainer. When Merkel tried to get some controls on free movement for Cameron Eastern Europe vetoed it
That sounds on the surface to be a possibly fair point.
But on the BIG one -
Are the first pangs of doubt stirring yet as to the impossibility of Bernie beating the Donald? Bet they are.
Glad we agree on free movement, on Bernie no, I would not be surprised if the Donald was secretly contributing to the Sanders campaign
I have said repeatedly that Boris is not a right wing tory, he is very much a liberal and he has not surprised me in his actions so far. I did not vote for him, and at one time I resigned my membership as a result of his action against dissenting conservatives but that changed when he re-instated most of them, and to be honest he has impressed me on the upside since the GE
His optimistic can do attitude is infectious and is the right receipe at the present time
Hmm, we will see. I am watching him very VERY carefully. Open mind, that's only fair, but I will be surprised - and a little disappointed too - if he does not do something utterly appalling by Easter.
Cameron lost narrowly despite having, compared to Blair a decade earlier, a much harder situation. There was no major UKIP surge in Blair's time. There was no migrant crisis. There was no major party leader batting for both sides (Corbyn).
Part of the reason we ended up voting to leave was because those who might've voted either way saw that Labour was perfectly happy to promise a referendum during a campaign and then not hold one once they were safely ensconced in office.
The actions of Blair and Brown encouraged the vote to leave. If they'd held the Lisbon Treaty referendum it would've been lost, a strong sceptical signal would've been sent, and we'd still be in the EU.
There was, however, a big issue with asylum seekers during Blair’s premiership. The arrival of workers from the EU Accession States from 2004 onwards was the last straw, I suspect, for many people. Had Blair tackled asylum claims more effectively then the arrival of hard-working Poles etc might not have proved such a problem. By then people felt that there was simply no effective control over any form of migration into the country. FoM became the scapegoat for many of those concerns.
I suspect if Blair had also followed the likes of Germany and put in place a transition period, in which numbers were limited, that would have helped against such feeling.
Indeed Merkel said Germany introduced transition controls for 7 years even if it meant no short term boost to the economy to ensure social cohesion. Blair did not and eventually reaped the whirlwind as a diehard Remainer. When Merkel tried to get some controls on free movement for Cameron Eastern Europe vetoed it
She didn’t give a toss about social cohesion when she let in a million Syrians and others at a moment’s notice.
Britain did not use the controls it had under EU law. Anyway all water under the bridge now.
African migrants will have to meet the skills required under the Boris points system, just as EU migrants will, a level playing field not an open door for EU immigrants
I have said repeatedly that Boris is not a right wing tory, he is very much a liberal and he has not surprised me in his actions so far. I did not vote for him, and at one time I resigned my membership as a result of his action against dissenting conservatives but that changed when he re-instated most of them, and to be honest he has impressed me on the upside since the GE
His optimistic can do attitude is infectious and is the right receipe at the present time
Hmm, we will see. I am watching him very VERY carefully. Open mind, that's only fair, but I will be surprised - and a little disappointed too - if he does not do something utterly appalling by Easter.
The Huawei decision seems pretty appalling to me.
There was a pro-Uighur campaigner on the WATO today making an emotional appeal for Britain to do the moral thing (I know, the very idea!) wrt Huawei given their involvement in the surveillance and other techniques used to oppress the poor Uighurs.
Cameron lost narrowly despite having, compared to Blair a decade earlier, a much harder situation. There was no major UKIP surge in Blair's time. There was no migrant crisis. There was no major party leader batting for both sides (Corbyn).
Part of the reason we ended up voting to leave was because those who might've voted either way saw that Labour was perfectly happy to promise a referendum during a campaign and then not hold one once they were safely ensconced in office.
The actions of Blair and Brown encouraged the vote to leave. If they'd held the Lisbon Treaty referendum it would've been lost, a strong sceptical signal would've been sent, and we'd still be in the EU.
There was, however, a big issue with asylum seekers during Blair’s premiership. The arrival of workers from the EU Accession States from 2004 onwards was the last straw, I suspect, for many people. Had Blair tackled asylum claims more effectively then the arrival of hard-working Poles etc might not have proved such a problem. By then people felt that there was simply no effective control over any form of migration into the country. FoM became the scapegoat for many of those concerns.
I suspect if Blair had also followed the likes of Germany and put in place a transition period, in which numbers were limited, that would have helped against such feeling.
Indeed Merkel said Germany introduced transition controls for 7 years even if it meant no short term boost to the economy to ensure social cohesion. Blair did not and eventually reaped the whirlwind as a diehard Remainer. When Merkel tried to get some controls on free movement for Cameron Eastern Europe vetoed it
She didn’t give a toss about social cohesion when she let in a million Syrians and others at a moment’s notice.
Britain did not use the controls it had under EU law. Anyway all water under the bridge now.
African migrants will have to meet the skills required under the Boris points system, just as EU migrants will, a level playing field not an open door for EU immigrants
I love the fanbois description of "Boris points system (sic)" as though the Great Man writes it himself. Frighteningly reminiscent of how the gullible supported despots through history.
African migrants will have to meet the skills required under the Boris points system, just as EU migrants will, a level playing field not an open door for EU immigrants
I'm very pleased the whole world is being treated equally and it's a positive from leaving the EU in my view.
However, we've already heard from business calls for an opt out to allow low skilled immigration from the EU and the problem is with employment at a record high and unemployment so low where is the labour capacity to promote continued economic growth?
Back in the 80s, we got to the point in the SE when we had full employment and the problem was workers could command their own wages - wage inflation led to price inflation and the economy collapsed into recession.
With labour supply being restricted and Johnson determined to over-stimulate the economy, what is going to prevent capacity problems and wage-led inflation returning?
Cameron lost narrowly despite having, compared to Blair a decade earlier, a much harder situation. There was no major UKIP surge in Blair's time. There was no migrant crisis. There was no major party leader batting for both sides (Corbyn).
Part of the reason we ended up voting to leave was because those who might've voted either way saw that Labour was perfectly happy to promise a referendum during a campaign and then not hold one once they were safely ensconced in office.
The actions of Blair and Brown encouraged the vote to leave. If they'd held the Lisbon Treaty referendum it would've been lost, a strong sceptical signal would've been sent, and we'd still be in the EU.
There was, however, a big issue with asylum seekers during Blair’s premiership. The arrival of workers from the EU Accession States from 2004 onwards was the last straw, I suspect, for many people. Had Blair tackled asylum claims more effectively then the arrival of hard-working Poles etc might not have proved such a problem. By then people felt that there was simply no effective control over any form of migration into the country. FoM became the scapegoat for many of those concerns.
I suspect if Blair had also followed the likes of Germany and put in place a transition period, in which numbers were limited, that would have helped against such feeling.
Indeed Merkel said Germany introduced transition controls for 7 years even if it meant no short term boost to the economy to ensure social cohesion. Blair did not and eventually reaped the whirlwind as a diehard Remainer. When Merkel tried to get some controls on free movement for Cameron Eastern Europe vetoed it
She didn’t give a toss about social cohesion when she let in a million Syrians and others at a moment’s notice.
Britain did not use the controls it had under EU law. Anyway all water under the bridge now.
African migrants will have to meet the skills required under the Boris points system, just as EU migrants will, a level playing field not an open door for EU immigrants
It always wryly amused me, when I was gallivanting around the Dark Continent - try and get INTO an African country without the correct visa.... You'll invariably be marched off to jail.
African migrants will have to meet the skills required under the Boris points system, just as EU migrants will, a level playing field not an open door for EU immigrants
Oh it's the "Boris points" system now, is it? No more Australia.
I wonder how many Boris Points will be needed to get in here. Low bar or high bar? He has a fine line to tread on this. A liberal or a reactionary? 2 big parts of his voting coalition want opposite things.
Cameron lost narrowly despite having, compared to Blair a decade earlier, a much harder situation. There was no major UKIP surge in Blair's time. There was no migrant crisis. There was no major party leader batting for both sides (Corbyn).
Part of the reason we ended up voting to leave was because those who might've voted either way saw that Labour was perfectly happy to promise a referendum during a campaign and then not hold one once they were safely ensconced in office.
The actions of Blair and Brown encouraged the vote to leave. If they'd held the Lisbon Treaty referendum it would've been lost, a strong sceptical signal would've been sent, and we'd still be in the EU.
There was, however, a big issue with asylum seekers during Blair’s premiership. The arrival of workers from the EU Accession States from 2004 onwards was the last straw, I suspect, for many people. Had Blair tackled asylum claims more effectively then the arrival of hard-working Poles etc might not have proved such a problem. By then people felt that there was simply no effective control over any form of migration into the country. FoM became the scapegoat for many of those concerns.
I suspect if Blair had also followed the likes of Germany and put in place a transition period, in which numbers were limited, that would have helped against such feeling.
Indeed Merkel said Germany introduced transition controls for 7 years even if it meant no short term boost to the economy to ensure social cohesion. Blair did not and eventually reaped the whirlwind as a diehard Remainer. When Merkel tried to get some controls on free movement for Cameron Eastern Europe vetoed it
She didn’t give a toss about social cohesion when she let in a million Syrians and others at a moment’s notice.
Britain did not use the controls it had under EU law. Anyway all water under the bridge now.
African migrants will have to meet the skills required under the Boris points system, just as EU migrants will, a level playing field not an open door for EU immigrants
Do you think the sorts of people to whom the two immigration posters during the referendum campaign were directed were primarily concerned about the migrants’ skills or possibly something else?
After all most EU migrants were not benefit seekers, were pretty highly skilled and contributed greatly to our economy.
In the North East Seats at GE 2019, Labour went down by 14.31% on average, The Brexit Party got 11.65% and the Tories gained 1.85%
Really? That seems to suggest that the popularity of Boris in that region is a myth - a massive antipathy towards Jezza was the driving factor. Once this sinks in I suspect that the Tories' currently fascination with the north will turn out to be a five-minute wonder.
It might, but many Tories seem aware that they are not necessarily super popular in the north, which explains why they are fascinated - they know they've been given a chance to become popular if they play things right.
African migrants will have to meet the skills required under the Boris points system, just as EU migrants will, a level playing field not an open door for EU immigrants
I'm very pleased the whole world is being treated equally and it's a positive from leaving the EU in my view.
However, we've already heard from business calls for an opt out to allow low skilled immigration from the EU and the problem is with employment at a record high and unemployment so low where is the labour capacity to promote continued economic growth?
Back in the 80s, we got to the point in the SE when we had full employment and the problem was workers could command their own wages - wage inflation led to price inflation and the economy collapsed into recession.
With labour supply being restricted and Johnson determined to over-stimulate the economy, what is going to prevent capacity problems and wage-led inflation returning?
Leave won because of low skilled workers wanting higher wages in large part, big business backed Remain, Leave won
Cameron lost narrowly despite having, compared to Blair a decade earlier, a much harder situation. There was no major UKIP surge in Blair's time. There was no migrant crisis. There was no major party leader batting for both sides (Corbyn).
Part of the reason we ended up voting to leave was because those who might've voted either way saw that Labour was perfectly happy to promise a referendum during a campaign and then not hold one once they were safely ensconced in office.
The actions of Blair and Brown encouraged the vote to leave. If they'd held the Lisbon Treaty referendum it would've been lost, a strong sceptical signal would've been sent, and we'd still be in the EU.
I'm afraid you're wrong, Mr Dancer.
Cameron's commitment was not to have an IN/OUT vote but a vote on a renegotiated membership. It was his and the EU's failure to agree a set of revised membership terms that forced Cameron into an IN/OUT vote.
Even then, he must have thought, having won the 2015 GE against the odds, his own personal popularity would carry REMAIN over the line and for those who opposed him within his Party such as Gove and Johnson it was a huge political gamble. Had REMAIN won, their political careers would have been over and Johnson's Journeys would be a hit show on BBC2 as we follow the bumptious buffoon on his globe-trotting odyssey.
The gamble paid off and the Conservative Party was taken over by the LEAVE brigade as Cameron and then May were effectively forced out.
Blair's action was ancient history just as Maastricht was (and we had no referendum then with the main opposition coming from the likes of IDS in Parliament - whatever happened to him?).
The basic problem from my perspective was no one ever made a telling case for us being in the EU - we wanted to be part of Europe but at the same time apart from Europe. In the end, we had a half-hearted half-baked semi-membership which in the end satisfied no one and annoyed everyone.
The attitude to Europe which existed at Messina still prevails 60 years or more later.
There was a pro-Uighur campaigner on the WATO today making an emotional appeal for Britain to do the moral thing (I know, the very idea!) wrt Huawei given their involvement in the surveillance and other techniques used to oppress the poor Uighurs.
I'm no tech expert but I don't feel the same as you on this one. Instinctively, I feel OK with the decision not to delay our 5G rollout purely due to a fear of China.
But I read the various posts from you and others in the opposite camp with interest.
I have said repeatedly that Boris is not a right wing tory, he is very much a liberal and he has not surprised me in his actions so far. I did not vote for him, and at one time I resigned my membership as a result of his action against dissenting conservatives but that changed when he re-instated most of them, and to be honest he has impressed me on the upside since the GE
His optimistic can do attitude is infectious and is the right receipe at the present time
Hmm, we will see. I am watching him very VERY carefully. Open mind, that's only fair, but I will be surprised - and a little disappointed too - if he does not do something utterly appalling by Easter.
"He was doing so well - right up until he shagged that Easter Bunny....."
Comments
It won't surprise me if it costs at least that.
But I don't see how the Govt. cans it. It does need to have some very savvy PR selling it far better than has been done to date, however. It has allowed the narrative to develop of it being all about London. It has to make a big push on it being about additional capacity for the whole rail network.
Oh, and don't even TRY to sell us the "every £x spent mean an added £x + y benefit to the economy" line. Nobody is buying it.
https://twitter.com/rewearmouth/status/1222546339764101127?s=21
Even at £106bn it has a £1.40 benefit for every £1 cost, that has already been leaked.
Finally, the alternatives are far worse in terms of costs and benefits and unless you have decided to write off the infrastructure that the business and political community of the north are crying out for, you are going to have to do something very radical to increase capacity up and down and across the countries railways.
He really is stealing Labour's clothes.
The EU needs a leader that has campaigned in all three of Birmingham, Barcelona and Bavaria. And everywhere else.
The rest of us are moving on. When you're ready to finish your strop come and find us.
The railways need accountability, not nationalisation. Oh, hold on; not that bit. These bits:
We will build Northern Powerhouse Rail between Leeds and Manchester and then focus on Liverpool, Tees Valley, Hull, Sheffield and Newcastle.
We will invest in the Midlands Rail Hub, strengthening rail links including those between Birmingham, Leicester, Nottingham, Coventry, Derby, Hereford and Worcester.
We will also invest in improving train lines to the South West and East Anglia.
We will give city regions the funding to upgrade their bus, tram and train services to make them as good as London’s
HS2 is a great ambition, but will now cost at least £81 billion and will not reach Leeds or Manchester until as late as 2040. We will consider the findings of the Oakervee review into costs and timings and work with leaders of the Midlands and the North to decide the optimal outcome.
we will restore many of the Beeching lines, reconnecting smaller towns such as Fleetwood and Willenhall
Oakervee review provided and optimal outcome seemingly decided.
Time for people to end their stropping and accept the democratic decision.
Epic fail.
Brexit is because err.. we had too many opt-outs and opt-ins:
https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1222553258633441281?s=20
"Blair was later forced into offering a referendum on the EU Constitutional Treaty in 2004 because Charlie Kennedy supported Michael Howard’s call for one and a good number of Labour MPs would have voted for the plebiscite.
France saved Blair by voting down the constitution in 2005. Perhaps if Blair had held a referendum then and lost, as President Chirac did in France, that might have taught David Cameron that holding plebiscites on Europe could only produce one outcome."
It seems to be a habit.
https://politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/109465/excl-rebecca-long-bailey-accused-lying-over-claim
The idea that simply denying any vote whatsoever on the EU ad infinitum was a serious political answer to euroscepticism in the UK is for the birds.
However, if you are an editor of a national newspaper and live in the Chilterns why not stick with speed as the issue, therefore undermining the real reasons the scheme is planned?
If you look at HS2 part of the DfT website it is full of capacity reports and news releases, never picked up by the media.
It's part of the problem in this country, reality is someone living in the Chilterns has a much better chance of having the ability to affect the nations mood and government policy than someone living in an inner city council estate in Manchester.
The positive affect on the poor person in Manchester never gets a look in but all the negatives for those 'poor' people in the Chilterns never leaves the coverage.
Another promise I hope Boris keeps...
Cameron lost narrowly despite having, compared to Blair a decade earlier, a much harder situation. There was no major UKIP surge in Blair's time. There was no migrant crisis. There was no major party leader batting for both sides (Corbyn).
Part of the reason we ended up voting to leave was because those who might've voted either way saw that Labour was perfectly happy to promise a referendum during a campaign and then not hold one once they were safely ensconced in office.
The actions of Blair and Brown encouraged the vote to leave. If they'd held the Lisbon Treaty referendum it would've been lost, a strong sceptical signal would've been sent, and we'd still be in the EU.
HS2 is simply the next step on that path, those opposed to the scheme seem to suggest that Manchester (and other places) would not be adversely affected if the WCML and M6 had never existed.
His optimistic can do attitude is infectious and is the right receipe at the present time
The response was a bit like the hard left types you already respond to claims socialism never works, with we don't have a proper european union, the only way future is a much more integrated closer nit EU with more powers centralized.
"No."
"Then you cannot have seen it blow up then can you."
Had it been addressed 15 years ago, we'd have been talking about a Ruhr model. Now, I tend to think Manchester would be a much more dominant focal point if connectivity improved.
Put any new (electric??) airport somewhere north of London along HS2, and the infrastructure job for the north would be substantially done.
As opposed to a hundred times that, at £106,000,000,000.
Or more if the costs continue to escalate, with a figure of £130,000,000,000 including contingencies now being mooted.
Most of those travelling from the West Midlands to London will in fact see a time saving of 0 minutes, not least from the Black Country, since Curzon Street is so remote from the rest of the creaking West Midlands transport hub centred on New Street that most will find it quicker (and cheaper) to continue to use the WCML or Chiltern Line. As for the WCML capacity issues, they are largely contrived, which is why they were only brought to the fore once the original business case collapsed.
Meanwhile, here's the sort of thing that people in the West Midlands would actually benefit from, delivering transport benefits far more quickly at a tiny fraction of the cost, on the sort of transport links that the people and businesses of the region actually rely upon.
https://www.expressandstar.com/news/transport/2020/01/27/how-hs2-billions-could-be-spent-on-our-region/
Seems that some crossed wires in the media, those being asked to self-isolate are those coming back from areas other than Wuhan. Those the government are evacuating from Wuhan are going into quarantine.
....
BBC suspend the turn off red button service that costs £39m a year to run
This is like when BBC had choice of closing down the likes of BBC Three and bottled it. You think Amazon, Netflix or Sky would hesitate to keep a service that is used by bugger all people and will only continue to decline every single week.
If we voted to Remain, it wasn't for the status quo, it was for ever closer union. Now if in 20-30 years being in a protected trading block against the likes of what will be the global superpower of China is better than fighting out in the world, but being able to be a bit more nibble, who knows.
https://twitter.com/jmartNYT/status/1222373352360349696
Everton reject a €100 million bid from Barcelona for Richarlison.
The EU's strength is in it's weakness; it cannot and will not become the bogeyman that Farage et al conned people in this country into believing because it is simply inefficient in it's ambition.
It isn't just Brexit, as I said in the BBC documentary straight after Brexit, the EU top brass were already talking about this being the only way to deal with inequalities within the different EU countries, which was seeing a rise of populist parties.
What is the alternative?
Honest question, fact no one has provided one in 12 years explains why HS2 or something incredibly similar will eventually be built.
Maybe the issues on the legacy network need HS2 for them to be fixed?
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/29/alastair-stewart-quits-as-itv-presenter-over-errors-of-judgment
But not to worry because they have certainly made up for it since.
https://labourlist.org/2020/01/dont-despair-the-left-has-come-a-long-way-since-labours-2015-leadership-race/?amp
My personal view though is that we were right to let Poles and others in. The accession of those states - after the terrible time they had under Soviet control - was a wonderful moment and achievement in European history. To keep their people at arms’ length seemed petty and unworthy, especially when so many of them - Poles particularly - had fought alongside us in WW2 and been betrayed at the end of that war. Something mean-spirited about Germany’s exclusion of them, I felt. If there was one area to which the Germans owed a moral debt of honour, it was to Poland and the Baltic states.
The issue of migration - asylum-seeking and family reunions and cousin marriages in Pakistani communities - should have been dealt with much earlier and more effectively. Then it would have been easier to persuade people of the benefits of FoM. That and not coming up with such obviously bogus figures as 13,000 migrants.
It was the sense that the government had lost control - or had deliberately abandoned all pretence of control - long before 2005 that did for the government. Hence, also, the brilliance of the “Take Back Control” slogan.
But on the BIG one -
Are the first pangs of doubt stirring yet as to the impossibility of Bernie beating the Donald? Bet they are.
"...maybe it's time to throw out those traditional yardsticks."
"Only a lunatic would try to predict a Democratic nominee under these circumstances and I certainly won’t. But put me down for Biden with a 50 percent chance and Bloomberg at 25 percent, with 25 percent split between Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and who the heck else."
https://cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/picture-remain-cloudy-after-iowa-and-new-hampshire
Britain did not use the controls it had under EU law. Anyway all water under the bridge now.
I do wonder if diehard Leave voters will be pleased with the increased migration from Africa Boris is promising them - https://www.monitor.co.ug/News/World/Britain-will-be-more-open-to-migrants-from-Africa/688340-5425566-a8af0vz/index.html.
There was a pro-Uighur campaigner on the WATO today making an emotional appeal for Britain to do the moral thing (I know, the very idea!) wrt Huawei given their involvement in the surveillance and other techniques used to oppress the poor Uighurs.
Reposting this on this topic - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/12/09/lets-talk-about-islamophobia/.
However, we've already heard from business calls for an opt out to allow low skilled immigration from the EU and the problem is with employment at a record high and unemployment so low where is the labour capacity to promote continued economic growth?
Back in the 80s, we got to the point in the SE when we had full employment and the problem was workers could command their own wages - wage inflation led to price inflation and the economy collapsed into recession.
With labour supply being restricted and Johnson determined to over-stimulate the economy, what is going to prevent capacity problems and wage-led inflation returning?
I wonder how many Boris Points will be needed to get in here. Low bar or high bar? He has a fine line to tread on this. A liberal or a reactionary? 2 big parts of his voting coalition want opposite things.
After all most EU migrants were not benefit seekers, were pretty highly skilled and contributed greatly to our economy.
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1222562936771809280?s=20
Cameron's commitment was not to have an IN/OUT vote but a vote on a renegotiated membership. It was his and the EU's failure to agree a set of revised membership terms that forced Cameron into an IN/OUT vote.
Even then, he must have thought, having won the 2015 GE against the odds, his own personal popularity would carry REMAIN over the line and for those who opposed him within his Party such as Gove and Johnson it was a huge political gamble. Had REMAIN won, their political careers would have been over and Johnson's Journeys would be a hit show on BBC2 as we follow the bumptious buffoon on his globe-trotting odyssey.
The gamble paid off and the Conservative Party was taken over by the LEAVE brigade as Cameron and then May were effectively forced out.
Blair's action was ancient history just as Maastricht was (and we had no referendum then with the main opposition coming from the likes of IDS in Parliament - whatever happened to him?).
The basic problem from my perspective was no one ever made a telling case for us being in the EU - we wanted to be part of Europe but at the same time apart from Europe. In the end, we had a half-hearted half-baked semi-membership which in the end satisfied no one and annoyed everyone.
The attitude to Europe which existed at Messina still prevails 60 years or more later.
But I read the various posts from you and others in the opposite camp with interest.
https://twitter.com/EtanSmallman/status/1222569997073113088