It's his last resort and only hope of saving the union but ultimately it won't make difference. It will just delay independence for Ireland and Scotland by a few years.
If you think Bloomberg never wins at a brokered convention and won’t get a plurality of delegates from primaries unless his national polling is transformed, then what do you think his real chances are? 8/1, 10/1, 12/1 or 25/1?
I can’t see him being north of about 15/1 myself. Yet.
Leaders of all sorts float ideas. The last three Presidents of the United States (at least the last 3, maybe more) have announced that NASA will be sending manned missions to Mars. Based on earlier announcements that should be happening soon, but its always something decades off that gets forgotten about until it gets announced as a great new idea by the next President.
Part of the reason is that talk is cheap I agree. But the second reason I'd give is more nobel than Mr Meeks cynical suggestion - by floating different ideas people talk about them yes but then you can see the ideas that do take off, and when problems get discussed some people set out to start solving those problems.
If an idea is floated and the problems get solved relatively easily then that idea -even if it was originally just a kite - can end up a reality.
Totally agree. And it's right to study the feasibility - although I am puzzled why we're discussing it now, since the study has not reported and nor has it just been commissioned. Every new idea needs space to germinate and survive being a seedling - it is too easy to stamp on them at the earliest stage. I think Boris understands this and does not mind a bunch of non starters as long as one or two are amazing.
Any business case for a new bridge needs to start with a traffic study.
At present there are two routes plied from Belfast and Larne to Stranraer (ish) respectively, averaging 12 sailings a day.
Stena operates the Stena Superfast VII, which has a max capacity of 660 cars or 110 lorries or a mixture of both.
Let’s go 1/4 lorries and 3/4 cars. If we assume they all run to capacity all the time then you’re looking at about 500 cars and 30 lorries.
That gets you to 6,000 cars and 400 lorries (round up) a day. Let’s say every car pays £30 for the toll and lorries £100. You could maybe pull in £220k gross income a day.
You wouldn’t get that every day, and it’d be seasonal, but let’s assume you get it on 300 days (closures/bad weather etc) and you pull in £66m a year gross. You’ve then got a good few million a year in maintenance and much more in staff but let’s say an opex profit of £30-40m a year (remember: I’m being very generous with maxed out traffic receipts here) and over a 100 year lifespan you might expect £3-4bn in returns (again, note: I’ve done no NPV here, which will really depress it, and maintenance costs will increase with age).
The likely capex cost of the bridge (sans extra infrastructure) is probably £15-20bn. So it’s business case is some like 0.14-0.25 at best.
In other words, it’s fucking shite. Even if you assumed traffic would more than double you’d get nowhere near breaking even.
It will never be built.
Those numbers are staggeringly generous.
Hence, hopefully, the power of my point.
You could throw in every scotland to (Northern and Republic of) ireland flight being replaced by a rail service as well and I would assume you would still not get close
Any business case for a new bridge needs to start with a traffic study.
At present there are two routes plied from Belfast and Larne to Stranraer (ish) respectively, averaging 12 sailings a day.
Stena operates the Stena Superfast VII, which has a max capacity of 660 cars or 110 lorries or a mixture of both.
Let’s go 1/4 lorries and 3/4 cars. If we assume they all run to capacity all the time then you’re looking at about 500 cars and 30 lorries.
That gets you to 6,000 cars and 400 lorries (round up) a day. Let’s say every car pays £30 for the toll and lorries £100. You could maybe pull in £220k gross income a day.
You wouldn’t get that every day, and it’d be seasonal, but let’s assume you get it on 300 days (closures/bad weather etc) and you pull in £66m a year gross. You’ve then got a good few million a year in maintenance and much more in staff but let’s say an opex profit of £30-40m a year (remember: I’m being very generous with maxed out traffic receipts here) and over a 100 year lifespan you might expect £3-4bn in returns (again, note: I’ve done no NPV here, which will really depress it, and maintenance costs will increase with age).
The likely capex cost of the bridge (sans extra infrastructure) is probably £15-20bn. So it’s business case is some like 0.14-0.25 at best.
In other words, it’s fucking shite. Even if you assumed traffic would more than double you’d get nowhere near breaking even.
It will never be built.
So not a fan then?
(ducks)
Whether I’m a fan or not is irrelevant. In fact, from a purely engineering perspective, I find it rather an interesting challenge.
I’m just pointing out there is next to no business case for it.
Any business case for a new bridge needs to start with a traffic study.
At present there are two routes plied from Belfast and Larne to Stranraer (ish) respectively, averaging 12 sailings a day.
Stena operates the Stena Superfast VII, which has a max capacity of 660 cars or 110 lorries or a mixture of both.
Let’s go 1/4 lorries and 3/4 cars. If we assume they all run to capacity all the time then you’re looking at about 500 cars and 30 lorries.
That gets you to 6,000 cars and 400 lorries (round up) a day. Let’s say every car pays £30 for the toll and lorries £100. You could maybe pull in £220k gross income a day.
You wouldn’t get that every day, and it’d be seasonal, but let’s assume you get it on 300 days (closures/bad weather etc) and you pull in £66m a year gross. You’ve then got a good few million a year in maintenance and much more in staff but let’s say an opex profit of £30-40m a year (remember: I’m being very generous with maxed out traffic receipts here) and over a 100 year lifespan you might expect £3-4bn in returns (again, note: I’ve done no NPV here, which will really depress it, and maintenance costs will increase with age).
The likely capex cost of the bridge (sans extra infrastructure) is probably £15-20bn. So it’s business case is some like 0.14-0.25 at best.
In other words, it’s fucking shite. Even if you assumed traffic would more than double you’d get nowhere near breaking even.
It will never be built.
So not a fan then?
(ducks)
Whether I’m a fan or not is irrelevant. In fact, from a purely engineering perspective, I find it rather an interesting challenge.
I’m just pointing out there is next to no business case for it.
How on earth did you resist putting the plural name of a bird in brackets underneath that post?
Last year's GDP growth figure of 1.4% is entirely due to increases in public spending and to a lesser extent households spending money they don't have. The productive part of the economy actually went backwards. Johnson will want to keep the public spending taps on for as long as possible.
Jeremy Corbyn has a right to feel aggrieved. Just think what GDP growth would be if he were in power.
Any business case for a new bridge needs to start with a traffic study.
At present there are two routes plied from Belfast and Larne to Stranraer (ish) respectively, averaging 12 sailings a day.
Stena operates the Stena Superfast VII, which has a max capacity of 660 cars or 110 lorries or a mixture of both.
Let’s go 1/4 lorries and 3/4 cars. If we assume they all run to capacity all the time then you’re looking at about 500 cars and 30 lorries.
That gets you to 6,000 cars and 400 lorries (round up) a day. Let’s say every car pays £30 for the toll and lorries £100. You could maybe pull in £220k gross income a day.
You wouldn’t get that every day, and it’d be seasonal, but let’s assume you get it on 300 days (closures/bad weather etc) and you pull in £66m a year gross. You’ve then got a good few million a year in maintenance and much more in staff but let’s say an opex profit of £30-40m a year (remember: I’m being very generous with maxed out traffic receipts here) and over a 100 year lifespan you might expect £3-4bn in returns (again, note: I’ve done no NPV here, which will really depress it, and maintenance costs will increase with age).
The likely capex cost of the bridge (sans extra infrastructure) is probably £15-20bn. So it’s business case is some like 0.14-0.25 at best.
In other words, it’s fucking shite. Even if you assumed traffic would more than double you’d get nowhere near breaking even.
It will never be built.
So not a fan then?
(ducks)
Whether I’m a fan or not is irrelevant. In fact, from a purely engineering perspective, I find it rather an interesting challenge.
I’m just pointing out there is next to no business case for it.
Fair enough. But, and I suspect like so much of the coming years, sober calculation will be overturned by raw emotion...
Any business case for a new bridge needs to start with a traffic study.
At present there are two routes plied from Belfast and Larne to Stranraer (ish) respectively, averaging 12 sailings a day.
Stena operates the Stena Superfast VII, which has a max capacity of 660 cars or 110 lorries or a mixture of both.
Let’s go 1/4 lorries and 3/4 cars. If we assume they all run to capacity all the time then you’re looking at about 500 cars and 30 lorries.
That gets you to 6,000 cars and 400 lorries (round up) a day. Let’s say every car pays £30 for the toll and lorries £100. You could maybe pull in £220k gross income a day.
You wouldn’t get that every day, and it’d be seasonal, but let’s assume you get it on 300 days (closures/bad weather etc) and you pull in £66m a year gross. You’ve then got a good few million a year in maintenance and much more in staff but let’s say an opex profit of £30-40m a year (remember: I’m being very generous with maxed out traffic receipts here) and over a 100 year lifespan you might expect £3-4bn in returns (again, note: I’ve done no NPV here, which will really depress it, and maintenance costs will increase with age).
The likely capex cost of the bridge (sans extra infrastructure) is probably £15-20bn. So it’s business case is some like 0.14-0.25 at best.
In other words, it’s fucking shite. Even if you assumed traffic would more than double you’d get nowhere near breaking even.
It will never be built.
So not a fan then?
(ducks)
Whether I’m a fan or not is irrelevant. In fact, from a purely engineering perspective, I find it rather an interesting challenge.
I’m just pointing out there is next to no business case for it.
Fair enough. But, and I suspect like so much of the coming years, sober calculation will be overturned by raw emotion...
Yes, one aspect of modern politics (which is kind of weird) is that providing facts are treated as providing an opinion.
I’ve provided some facts and assumptions that show it to have no business case. My personal opinion is that it is quite an interesting prospective project.
Any business case for a new bridge needs to start with a traffic study.
At present there are two routes plied from Belfast and Larne to Stranraer (ish) respectively, averaging 12 sailings a day.
Stena operates the Stena Superfast VII, which has a max capacity of 660 cars or 110 lorries or a mixture of both.
Let’s go 1/4 lorries and 3/4 cars. If we assume they all run to capacity all the time then you’re looking at about 500 cars and 30 lorries.
That gets you to 6,000 cars and 400 lorries (round up) a day. Let’s say every car pays £30 for the toll and lorries £100. You could maybe pull in £220k gross income a day.
You wouldn’t get that every day, and it’d be seasonal, but let’s assume you get it on 300 days (closures/bad weather etc) and you pull in £66m a year gross. You’ve then got a good few million a year in maintenance and much more in staff but let’s say an opex profit of £30-40m a year (remember: I’m being very generous with maxed out traffic receipts here) and over a 100 year lifespan you might expect £3-4bn in returns (again, note: I’ve done no NPV here, which will really depress it, and maintenance costs will increase with age).
The likely capex cost of the bridge (sans extra infrastructure) is probably £15-20bn. So it’s business case is some like 0.14-0.25 at best.
In other words, it’s fucking shite. Even if you assumed traffic would more than double you’d get nowhere near breaking even.
It will never be built.
So not a fan then?
(ducks)
Whether I’m a fan or not is irrelevant. In fact, from a purely engineering perspective, I find it rather an interesting challenge.
I’m just pointing out there is next to no business case for it.
How on earth did you resist putting the plural name of a bird in brackets underneath that post?
When I typed "(ducks)" I was not applying a term of endearment popular in 30's cockernee films, nor was I referring to a bird of the family Anatidae. I was instead referring to a rapid downward movement of the head and shoulders to evade damage, used in online banter to denote a joke that is simultaneously funny and infuriating.
Any business case for a new bridge needs to start with a traffic study.
At present there are two routes plied from Belfast and Larne to Stranraer (ish) respectively, averaging 12 sailings a day.
Stena operates the Stena Superfast VII, which has a max capacity of 660 cars or 110 lorries or a mixture of both.
Let’s go 1/4 lorries and 3/4 cars. If we assume they all run to capacity all the time then you’re looking at about 500 cars and 30 lorries.
That gets you to 6,000 cars and 400 lorries (round up) a day. Let’s say every car pays £30 for the toll and lorries £100. You could maybe pull in £220k gross income a day.
You wouldn’t get that every day, and it’d be seasonal, but let’s assume you get it on 300 days (closures/bad weather etc) and you pull in £66m a year gross. You’ve then got a good few million a year in maintenance and much more in staff but let’s say an opex profit of £30-40m a year (remember: I’m being very generous with maxed out traffic receipts here) and over a 100 year lifespan you might expect £3-4bn in returns (again, note: I’ve done no NPV here, which will really depress it, and maintenance costs will increase with age).
The likely capex cost of the bridge (sans extra infrastructure) is probably £15-20bn. So it’s business case is some like 0.14-0.25 at best.
In other words, it’s fucking shite. Even if you assumed traffic would more than double you’d get nowhere near breaking even.
It will never be built.
So not a fan then?
(ducks)
Whether I’m a fan or not is irrelevant. In fact, from a purely engineering perspective, I find it rather an interesting challenge.
I’m just pointing out there is next to no business case for it.
Fair enough. But, and I suspect like so much of the coming years, sober calculation will be overturned by raw emotion...
Yes, one aspect of modern politics (which is kind of weird) is that providing facts are treated as providing an opinion.
I’ve provided some facts and assumptions that show it to have no business case. My personal opinion is that it is quite an interesting prospective project.
They are two different things.
Does it have to break even? I am sure CalMac have never made a profit (without subsidy) and what does a similar calculation for HS2 look like?
Johnson’s vanity projects are fine up to a point. The problem comes when they start drawing funds away from other things. One of the criticisms of the Garden bridge was not just its ultimate abandonment at a massive cost to TfL (the effects of which, in combination with Khan’s “fare freezes”, are still being felt) is the other projects which were scrapped in the process - I believe an oft mentioned one is an upgrading of the Blackwall (?) tunnel possibly?
This is the problem with Johnson - he was always likely to see spending money as a good thing for its own sake, without any real thought for financial discipline or what that meant for the long term. You don’t have to be a fan of austerity to recognise that.
Lol Bloomberg. He's a republican. He hates black people just like the rest of them.
He does have one distinct positive. He is not Trump!
There is that. Bloomberg was "A lifelong Democrat before seeking elective office, Bloomberg switched his party registration in 2001 to run for mayor as a Republican. He defeated opponent Mark J. Green in a close election held just weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks. He won a second term in 2005 and left the Republican Party two years later."
It's his last resort and only hope of saving the union but ultimately it won't make difference. It will just delay independence for Ireland and Scotland by a few years.
By the time that few extra years have elapsed we might be back in the single market under PM Starmer anyway, hence removing the border in the Irish Sea and Sturgeon's main reason for pushing indyref2
When do we get the first Nevada pole that's been done post NH?
I don't think at this time it will be of any use. The Nevada Democratic Party hasn't yet found a way to even count the votes.
That is a good point.
Neither do California polls, due to their complex system of mail and provisional ballots that distorts the electorate and takes months to count.
So far the United States has been lucky that California was a swing state only in 1976, if they mattered it would take about a year to find who won a Presidential Election.
Those who opposed HS2 ought, on reflection to have had a plan for what do with its left over £12bn rump that would otherwise have highlighted what a godawful mess the whole thing was. To try and make good. If there was such a plan I have not been aware. In the absence of a route backwards, I suppose the only route was forwards.
I still think the Northern Ireland bridge is a great idea. I don't know quite what it is about this country and bridges - it seems like other countries (Russia was mentioned) just have to think about a bridge and one appears.
I just had a look and the longest bridge in the world is indeed in Russia, but it looks like the water depth is 9m max.
When Boris' bridge was discussed a few days ago they specifically mentioned the Denmark/Sweden bridge - I believe the maximum depth for that one is 40m.
Isn't the Irish Sea 350m deep where Boris wants to build? I'm not a bridge builder, but I suspect even Putin might admit that was a little too ambitious.
Presumably she is telling them all about how to negotiate.
Why, in the name of all that is holy, would any sentient being pay to listen to Mrs May?
I can understand that for some organisations there would be some appeal in bragging about getting former PMs or even just MPs to speak at something or other, and even to pay for that to happen. What I do struggle to understand, even without how much money they have, is why they pay as much as they do when those people might be notable but still be poor speakers.
It's his last resort and only hope of saving the union but ultimately it won't make difference. It will just delay independence for Ireland and Scotland by a few years.
By the time that few extra years have elapsed we might be back in the single market under PM Starmer anyway, hence removing the border in the Irish Sea and Sturgeon's main reason for pushing indyref2
Once again you show your total ignorance of Scotland and its Politics.
Those who opposed HS2 ought, on reflection to have had a plan for what do with its left over £12bn rump that would otherwise have highlighted what a godawful mess the whole thing was. To try and make good. If there was such a plan I have not been aware. In the absence of a route backwards, I suppose the only route was forwards.
I still think the Northern Ireland bridge is a great idea. I don't know quite what it is about this country and bridges - it seems like other countries (Russia was mentioned) just have to think about a bridge and one appears.
If we were to categorise Boris' vanity civil engineering projects in terms of construction complexity, affordability and requirement (or lack of need) the new bridge project is head and shoulders above anything else he has dreamed up in terms of sheer lunacy.
We are talking about something that has been a core policy of NI's leading political party for (I think) over a decade. If what you say is true, let it come out in the feasibility study, and it can be put to bed for a while. Or not.
I think Mr Meek's assertion is accurate. Mr Johnson is perfectly entitled to offer us whatever he likes so long as the end date is set for a time in the relatively distant future. An aim for free interstellar flight by 2050? An aim for teleportation by 2060? It adds a cheery note of optimism to our otherwise dull existence.
Presumably she is telling them all about how to negotiate.
Why, in the name of all that is holy, would any sentient being pay to listen to Mrs May?
I can understand that for some organisations there would be some appeal in bragging about getting former PMs or even just MPs to speak at something or other, and even to pay for that to happen. What I do struggle to understand, even without how much money they have, is why they pay as much as they do when those people might be notable but still be poor speakers.
People are starving in the world, children are homeless in Syria, and someone thinks the best use of £96,000 is to pay Theresa May to speak. Aliens would be right to consider us mad, if they were watching.
Presumably she is telling them all about how to negotiate.
Why, in the name of all that is holy, would any sentient being pay to listen to Mrs May?
All true of course, but there is still the warmish glow of remembering that someone has fleeced PWC of £96K, which in itself is a sort of public service, for providing a speech most of us would happily pay not to hear. Perhaps the heating system of Sonning church needs a bit of cash to go carbon neutral and TM has decided to chip in?
Presumably she is telling them all about how to negotiate.
May has thus earnt almost 5 times her annual salary as PM since she left No 10
I see a good positive motive for her resignation as PM.
A type of golden parachute.
Maybe someone should have a word in Boris' shell-like.
When Boris learns he could be earning £10,000,000 a year for a couple of speeches and fete openings it might be tempting enough for him to resign. He seems motivated by money, so I live in hope.
Any business case for a new bridge needs to start with a traffic study.
At present there are two routes plied from Belfast and Larne to Stranraer (ish) respectively, averaging 12 sailings a day.
Stena operates the Stena Superfast VII, which has a max capacity of 660 cars or 110 lorries or a mixture of both.
Let’s go 1/4 lorries and 3/4 cars. If we assume they all run to capacity all the time then you’re looking at about 500 cars and 30 lorries.
That gets you to 6,000 cars and 400 lorries (round up) a day. Let’s say every car pays £30 for the toll and lorries £100. You could maybe pull in £220k gross income a day.
You wouldn’t get that every day, and it’d be seasonal, but let’s assume you get it on 300 days (closures/bad weather etc) and you pull in £66m a year gross. You’ve then got a good few million a year in maintenance and much more in staff but let’s say an opex profit of £30-40m a year (remember: I’m being very generous with maxed out traffic receipts here) and over a 100 year lifespan you might expect £3-4bn in returns (again, note: I’ve done no NPV here, which will really depress it, and maintenance costs will increase with age).
The likely capex cost of the bridge (sans extra infrastructure) is probably £15-20bn. So it’s business case is some like 0.14-0.25 at best.
In other words, it’s fucking shite. Even if you assumed traffic would more than double you’d get nowhere near breaking even.
It will never be built.
So not a fan then?
(ducks)
Whether I’m a fan or not is irrelevant. In fact, from a purely engineering perspective, I find it rather an interesting challenge.
I’m just pointing out there is next to no business case for it.
How on earth did you resist putting the plural name of a bird in brackets underneath that post?
When I typed "(ducks)" I was not applying a term of endearment popular in 30's cockernee films, nor was I referring to a bird of the family Anatidae. I was instead referring to a rapid downward movement of the head and shoulders to evade damage, used in online banter to denote a joke that is simultaneously funny and infuriating.
Obvs.
Still a term of endearment in parts of unwoke England.
Presumably she is telling them all about how to negotiate.
May has thus earnt almost 5 times her annual salary as PM since she left No 10
I see a good positive motive for her resignation as PM.
A type of golden parachute.
Maybe someone should have a word in Boris' shell-like.
When Boris learns he could be earning £10,000,000 a year for a couple of speeches and fete openings it might be tempting enough for him to resign. He seems motivated by money, so I live in hope.
He's earned plenty from speeches already, I suspect, plus his columns and so on. That's why now he seeks easy gratification and acclaim through splurging public cash.
Does it have to break even? I am sure CalMac have never made a profit (without subsidy) and what does a similar calculation for HS2 look like?
OK.
The Bridge would almost certainly run an operating profit. That is, it's revenues would almost certainly exceed the costs of keeping it open. (Although that might change over time as maintenance costs rise with age.)
But it would never make an economic return. It would never pay back its capital costs, or come even come close. The idea that operating profits could even cover interest payments in incredible.
With HS2, calculating the economic benefits is hard. There is additional capacity on the main line at peak hours. How much that will be utilised, and at what price, is key. Furthermore, part of the benefits of HS2 come in terms of increased capacity for other services as express trains are moved off old lines.
Nevertheless, a back of the envelope calculation for revenues is not that hard. HS2 probably increases revenues by around £1.5bn per year directly, and then you can add a figure for the benefits of more capacity on other lines. We then have to calculate an operating margin - because trains have more expenses than bridges. (Although the civil engineering around the trainline - i.e. the trench that is dug out - will likely last longer than the bridge.) But let's assume that you end up with operating profits of £1bn/year. On a £60bn cost, you don't quite make the interest payments, but over the course of 100 years, you at least have profits that exceed the cost of construction.
It feels to me that if he wins he is going to go for a big tent, keeping on some of the Corbynites like RLB but also bringing back the likes of Benn and Cooper. The key question then is whether everyone can get along or whether Momentum start causing trouble.
The danger of trying to keep everyone happy is that Lab may end up with a mish mash of policies with a few bones being thrown to the Corbynites and a few to the Blairites.
Starting a war in the Middle East, but against Israel this time, ought to keep both camps happy.
When do we get the first Nevada pole that's been done post NH?
I don't think at this time it will be of any use. The Nevada Democratic Party hasn't yet found a way to even count the votes.
That is a good point.
No, it's really not.
They're doing it the way it's always been done. They're abandoning the app, and will have precinct captains write down the results and then phone and email them into the central office.
I have little doubt that it will run as smoothly as it always does.
Predixtion: in approx 10 years Republicans in America will be having fainting fits that William Barr is not being confirmed to the Supreme Court.
There is going to be a point, probably in the not to distant future when Bill Barr and Mitch McConnell look at themselves in the mirror and ask themselves how the hell did we allow this insanity to get so far out of hand.
As someone who has occasionally hired politicians (and others) to give speeches at work one of the reasons you do it, regardless of the speaker, is that big name brings in people in your industry/clients/suppliers you don't normally get to see regularly, if at all.
So your star speaker is a former PM, chuck in some decent food and drinks, and it brings in the people you want to see.
Presumably she is telling them all about how to negotiate.
May has thus earnt almost 5 times her annual salary as PM since she left No 10
I see a good positive motive for her resignation as PM.
A type of golden parachute.
Maybe someone should have a word in Boris' shell-like.
When Boris learns he could be earning £10,000,000 a year for a couple of speeches and fete openings it might be tempting enough for him to resign. He seems motivated by money, so I live in hope.
If Boris does 10 years as PM he could double those earnings or more
As someone who has occasionally hired politicians (and others) to give speeches at work one of the reasons you do it, regardless of the speaker, is that big name brings in people in your industry/clients/suppliers you don't normally get to see regularly, if at all.
So your star speaker is a former PM, chuck in some decent food and drinks, and it brings in the people you want to see.
Presumably she is telling them all about how to negotiate.
May has thus earnt almost 5 times her annual salary as PM since she left No 10
I see a good positive motive for her resignation as PM.
A type of golden parachute.
Maybe someone should have a word in Boris' shell-like.
When Boris learns he could be earning £10,000,000 a year for a couple of speeches and fete openings it might be tempting enough for him to resign. He seems motivated by money, so I live in hope.
He's earned plenty from speeches already, I suspect, plus his columns and so on. That's why now he seeks easy gratification and acclaim through splurging public cash.
Interesting to note that Mr Eagles left out the most important question in his costing of the project. One that renders his analysis useless. Has he considered a job advising Jeremy Corbyn?
I must say i liked the suggestion in the article about the IRA trying to blow up the bridge with by setting off the the dumped munitions. This (among other things) illustrates the authors lack of knowledge of engineering and explosives. But hey.
Presumably she is telling them all about how to negotiate.
May has thus earnt almost 5 times her annual salary as PM since she left No 10
I see a good positive motive for her resignation as PM.
A type of golden parachute.
Maybe someone should have a word in Boris' shell-like.
When Boris learns he could be earning £10,000,000 a year for a couple of speeches and fete openings it might be tempting enough for him to resign. He seems motivated by money, so I live in hope.
He's earned plenty from speeches already, I suspect, plus his columns and so on. That's why now he seeks easy gratification and acclaim through splurging public cash.
As someone who has occasionally hired politicians (and others) to give speeches at work one of the reasons you do it, regardless of the speaker, is that big name brings in people in your industry/clients/suppliers you don't normally get to see regularly, if at all.
So your star speaker is a former PM, chuck in some decent food and drinks, and it brings in the people you want to see.
They act as a glorious networking event.
Sure, but for near 100k?
It's a bargain if it brings a client/clients that is/are a big fee earner, something that is annually 10 times that speaking fee.
It's his last resort and only hope of saving the union but ultimately it won't make difference. It will just delay independence for Ireland and Scotland by a few years.
By the time that few extra years have elapsed we might be back in the single market under PM Starmer anyway, hence removing the border in the Irish Sea and Sturgeon's main reason for pushing indyref2
Once again you show your total ignorance of Scotland and its Politics.
As someone who has occasionally hired politicians (and others) to give speeches at work one of the reasons you do it, regardless of the speaker, is that big name brings in people in your industry/clients/suppliers you don't normally get to see regularly, if at all.
So your star speaker is a former PM, chuck in some decent food and drinks, and it brings in the people you want to see.
They act as a glorious networking event.
Sure, but for near 100k?
It's a bargain if it brings a client/clients that is/are a big fee earner, something that is annually 10 times that speaking fee.
It's hard for those of us in less august surroundings to image, no doubt.
Presumably she is telling them all about how to negotiate.
May has thus earnt almost 5 times her annual salary as PM since she left No 10
I see a good positive motive for her resignation as PM.
A type of golden parachute.
Maybe someone should have a word in Boris' shell-like.
When Boris learns he could be earning £10,000,000 a year for a couple of speeches and fete openings it might be tempting enough for him to resign. He seems motivated by money, so I live in hope.
If Boris does 10 years as PM he could double those earnings or more
I was basing my analysis on Blair. £60m in ten years? And adding a bit more for inflation and Boris' gorgeousness.
As someone who has occasionally hired politicians (and others) to give speeches at work one of the reasons you do it, regardless of the speaker, is that big name brings in people in your industry/clients/suppliers you don't normally get to see regularly, if at all.
So your star speaker is a former PM, chuck in some decent food and drinks, and it brings in the people you want to see.
They act as a glorious networking event.
Corporate expenditure is down to corporations, but I think serving MPs should have to donate a large portion of any such earners to charity.
Forget about traffic levels and payback- the bridge isn't buildable. But we've had enough of experts, and 17.4m people voted for this bridge and Boris is the man to Get It Done
Interesting to note that Mr Eagles left out the most important question in his costing of the project. One that renders his analysis useless. Has he considered a job advising Jeremy Corbyn?
I must say i liked the suggestion in the article about the IRA trying to blow up the bridge with by setting off the the dumped munitions. This (among other things) illustrates the authors lack of knowledge of engineering and explosives. But hey.
Fake news, I haven't costed this project.
Quite honestly, I wouldn't even know where to start.
As someone who has occasionally hired politicians (and others) to give speeches at work one of the reasons you do it, regardless of the speaker, is that big name brings in people in your industry/clients/suppliers you don't normally get to see regularly, if at all.
So your star speaker is a former PM, chuck in some decent food and drinks, and it brings in the people you want to see.
They act as a glorious networking event.
Sure, but for near 100k?
It's a bargain if it brings a client/clients that is/are a big fee earner, something that is annually 10 times that speaking fee.
It's hard for those of us in less august surroundings to image, no doubt.
I hear Mrs May is great speaker when it comes to cricket, she's a huge fan, which explains the knighthoods for Messers Boycott, Strauss, and Cook.
But she wouldn't be in the my top ten speakers I'd hire.
Interesting to note that Mr Eagles left out the most important question in his costing of the project. One that renders his analysis useless. Has he considered a job advising Jeremy Corbyn?
I must say i liked the suggestion in the article about the IRA trying to blow up the bridge with by setting off the the dumped munitions. This (among other things) illustrates the authors lack of knowledge of engineering and explosives. But hey.
Fake news, I haven't costed this project.
Quite honestly, I wouldn't even know where to start.
1) You left out the critical part of any analysis for a new transport link - not just the current traffic level, but any analysis of how traffic levels might change with extra capacity.
Imagine an analysis of HS2 that said - we take the existing traffic level and assume that HS2 will carry the same.
2) Non direct benefits not considered. When looking at transport links, the knock on effects must be considered.
Forget about traffic levels and payback- the bridge isn't buildable. But we've had enough of experts, and 17.4m people voted for this bridge and Boris is the man to Get It Done
How about getting Dominic Cummings to stand on a floating platform and running trains back and forth across his colossal swollen head? Should reach right across the Irish Sea...
Interesting to note that Mr Eagles left out the most important question in his costing of the project. One that renders his analysis useless. Has he considered a job advising Jeremy Corbyn?
I must say i liked the suggestion in the article about the IRA trying to blow up the bridge with by setting off the the dumped munitions. This (among other things) illustrates the authors lack of knowledge of engineering and explosives. But hey.
Fake news, I haven't costed this project.
Quite honestly, I wouldn't even know where to start.
It's an imaginary project anyway. Fit only for driving unicorn and cart from Scotland to NI.
Interesting to note that Mr Eagles left out the most important question in his costing of the project. One that renders his analysis useless. Has he considered a job advising Jeremy Corbyn?
I must say i liked the suggestion in the article about the IRA trying to blow up the bridge with by setting off the the dumped munitions. This (among other things) illustrates the authors lack of knowledge of engineering and explosives. But hey.
Fake news, I haven't costed this project.
Quite honestly, I wouldn't even know where to start.
1) You left out the critical part of any analysis for a new transport link - not just the current traffic level, but any analysis of how traffic levels might change with extra capacity.
Imagine an analysis of HS2 that said - we take the existing traffic level and assume that HS2 will carry the same.
2) Non direct benefits not considered. When looking at transport links, the knock on effects must be considered.
Again I've not written anything on this subject apart from noting the Scots wouldn't be keen on Orange Order having easier access to Scotland.
Forget about traffic levels and payback- the bridge isn't buildable. But we've had enough of experts, and 17.4m people voted for this bridge and Boris is the man to Get It Done
How about getting Dominic Cummings to stand on a floating platform and running trains back and forth across his colossal swollen head? Should reach right across the Irish Sea...
Boris floats the idea (no pun intended). It gets knocked back for cost and difficulty reasons. He says "Aha. We looked at it but it isn't prudent to proceed. We will not waste public money...". The end result is that he looks open to new ideas but sensible at the same time. That would be a win for a lot of people, even him.
So Britain had the 3rd fastest growing economy in the G7 in 2019
LOL@Remainers
3rd out of 7 is, well, it's above average!
It's certainly not the apocalypse. What can possibly explain the below-Brexit performances of France, Germany and Italy???
Brexit???
Also, what ARE Remainers going to do if Brexit turns out OK, indeed pretty good, considering (which I expect). The levels of cognitive dissonance might be actively fatal. We may look upon Jolyon Maugham, in a tiny kimono, hammering a Boxing Day fox to death, as a time of relative Remoaner sanity.
I voted leave, did a Mea Culpa when I realised they were serious about leaving the EEA and became a #remainernow. Brexit isn't going to turn out ok if the Tories are serious about imposing border checks on everything in January. Business who imports and exports- like most business - needs to know what 2021 looks like. And "deal with it" doesn't cut the mustard when Govey says it'll be 2025 before we get back to border process as simple as we have now.
Interesting to note that Mr Eagles left out the most important question in his costing of the project. One that renders his analysis useless. Has he considered a job advising Jeremy Corbyn?
I must say i liked the suggestion in the article about the IRA trying to blow up the bridge with by setting off the the dumped munitions. This (among other things) illustrates the authors lack of knowledge of engineering and explosives. But hey.
Fake news, I haven't costed this project.
Quite honestly, I wouldn't even know where to start.
1) You left out the critical part of any analysis for a new transport link - not just the current traffic level, but any analysis of how traffic levels might change with extra capacity.
Imagine an analysis of HS2 that said - we take the existing traffic level and assume that HS2 will carry the same.
2) Non direct benefits not considered. When looking at transport links, the knock on effects must be considered.
Again I've not written anything on this subject apart from noting the Scots wouldn't be keen on Orange Order having easier access to Scotland.
Presumably she is telling them all about how to negotiate.
May has thus earnt almost 5 times her annual salary as PM since she left No 10
I see a good positive motive for her resignation as PM.
A type of golden parachute.
Maybe someone should have a word in Boris' shell-like.
When Boris learns he could be earning £10,000,000 a year for a couple of speeches and fete openings it might be tempting enough for him to resign. He seems motivated by money, so I live in hope.
If Boris does 10 years as PM he could double those earnings or more
I was basing my analysis on Blair. £60m in ten years? And adding a bit more for inflation and Boris' gorgeousness.
Blair gets his because he spent a decade as PM including the Iraq War. Had he just spent a few months he wouldn't be raking that in.
Leaders of all sorts float ideas. The last three Presidents of the United States (at least the last 3, maybe more) have announced that NASA will be sending manned missions to Mars. Based on earlier announcements that should be happening soon, but its always something decades off that gets forgotten about until it gets announced as a great new idea by the next President.
Part of the reason is that talk is cheap I agree. But the second reason I'd give is more nobel than Mr Meeks cynical suggestion - by floating different ideas people talk about them yes but then you can see the ideas that do take off, and when problems get discussed some people set out to start solving those problems.
If an idea is floated and the problems get solved relatively easily then that idea -even if it was originally just a kite - can end up a reality.
Totally agree. And it's right to study the feasibility - although I am puzzled why we're discussing it now, since the study has not reported and nor has it just been commissioned. Every new idea needs space to germinate and survive being a seedling - it is too easy to stamp on them at the earliest stage. I think Boris understands this and does not mind a bunch of non starters as long as one or two are amazing.
You don’t need a feasibility study.
We’ve just done it.
It isn’t feasible.
No you haven't. You've neatly and elegantly calculated that the road tolls won't repay the investment. I bow to no-one in my respect for your experience and abilities but that isn't a full feasibility study.
Predixtion: in approx 10 years Republicans in America will be having fainting fits that William Barr is not being confirmed to the Supreme Court.
There is going to be a point, probably in the not to distant future when Bill Barr and Mitch McConnell look at themselves in the mirror and ask themselves how the hell did we allow this insanity to get so far out of hand.
They absolutely will not. The Republican party is still outraged that people directly involved with Nixon and with the Iran-Contra affair were prosecuted and/or refused seats on the Supreme Court or had negative press written about them.
They think they are doing everything perfectly and will continue to do so until the day they die.
Why are we discussing a bridge that will never be built rather than the global pandemic that is about to change globalisation forever and kill many millions of people in the process?
Leaders of all sorts float ideas. The last three Presidents of the United States (at least the last 3, maybe more) have announced that NASA will be sending manned missions to Mars. Based on earlier announcements that should be happening soon, but its always something decades off that gets forgotten about until it gets announced as a great new idea by the next President.
Part of the reason is that talk is cheap I agree. But the second reason I'd give is more nobel than Mr Meeks cynical suggestion - by floating different ideas people talk about them yes but then you can see the ideas that do take off, and when problems get discussed some people set out to start solving those problems.
If an idea is floated and the problems get solved relatively easily then that idea -even if it was originally just a kite - can end up a reality.
Totally agree. And it's right to study the feasibility - although I am puzzled why we're discussing it now, since the study has not reported and nor has it just been commissioned. Every new idea needs space to germinate and survive being a seedling - it is too easy to stamp on them at the earliest stage. I think Boris understands this and does not mind a bunch of non starters as long as one or two are amazing.
You don’t need a feasibility study.
We’ve just done it.
It isn’t feasible.
No you haven't. You've neatly and elegantly calculated that the road tolls won't repay the investment. I bow to no-one in my respect for your experience and abilities but that isn't a full feasibility study.
Road tolls based on existing transport volumes with no change in volumes.
If roads and bridges were only ever built if they were self-funded from tolls there wouldn't be many roads etc built.
So Britain had the 3rd fastest growing economy in the G7 in 2019
LOL@Remainers
3rd out of 7 is, well, it's above average!
It's certainly not the apocalypse. What can possibly explain the below-Brexit performances of France, Germany and Italy???
Brexit???
Also, what ARE Remainers going to do if Brexit turns out OK, indeed pretty good, considering (which I expect). The levels of cognitive dissonance might be actively fatal. We may look upon Jolyon Maugham, in a tiny kimono, hammering a Boxing Day fox to death, as a time of relative Remoaner sanity.
I voted leave, did a Mea Culpa when I realised they were serious about leaving the EEA and became a #remainernow. Brexit isn't going to turn out ok if the Tories are serious about imposing border checks on everything in January. Business who imports and exports- like most business - needs to know what 2021 looks like. And "deal with it" doesn't cut the mustard when Govey says it'll be 2025 before we get back to border process as simple as we have now.
I entirely disagree. I reckon the natural vigour of capitalism will overcome all this trivial shit, and both sides will - in the end - find a begrudging but common cause.
And because Britain will be less encumbered with bureaucracy, and able to elect and eject all those who make our laws, we will do better.
It's that simple.
Can I ask what involvement you have in business / logistics /import and export etc? I am fine with the "vigour of capitalism" but vast amounts of added red tape costs money and delayed transit costs money and disrupted supply chains cost money and all 3 are now government policy.
When you say "less encumbered with bureaucracy" perhaps you can assist. Right now my company buys stuff with zero checks and zero paperwork. And then sells it with zero checks and zero paperwork. In January there will be lots of checks and paperwork for bits coming in and finished goods going out. I need to be proposing prices for products in the next month for next year and nobody has a clue what the cost will be of the mass of extra bureaucracy.
Perhaps you can advise the British Retail Consortium on their specific detailed real world list of questions that no-one other than you can answer.
Leaders of all sorts float ideas. The last three Presidents of the United States (at least the last 3, maybe more) have announced that NASA will be sending manned missions to Mars. Based on earlier announcements that should be happening soon, but its always something decades off that gets forgotten about until it gets announced as a great new idea by the next President.
Part of the reason is that talk is cheap I agree. But the second reason I'd give is more nobel than Mr Meeks cynical suggestion - by floating different ideas people talk about them yes but then you can see the ideas that do take off, and when problems get discussed some people set out to start solving those problems.
If an idea is floated and the problems get solved relatively easily then that idea -even if it was originally just a kite - can end up a reality.
Totally agree. And it's right to study the feasibility - although I am puzzled why we're discussing it now, since the study has not reported and nor has it just been commissioned. Every new idea needs space to germinate and survive being a seedling - it is too easy to stamp on them at the earliest stage. I think Boris understands this and does not mind a bunch of non starters as long as one or two are amazing.
You don’t need a feasibility study.
We’ve just done it.
It isn’t feasible.
No you haven't. You've neatly and elegantly calculated that the road tolls won't repay the investment. I bow to no-one in my respect for your experience and abilities but that isn't a full feasibility study.
A feasibility study will go into more detail on the business case and economics, and will lay out the engineering and technical challenges which will make an interesting read.
The conclusions won't be any different from the back of a fag packet though.
If it goes ahead it will be entirely political and will need heavy subsidy from the public purse.
Leaders of all sorts float ideas. The last three Presidents of the United States (at least the last 3, maybe more) have announced that NASA will be sending manned missions to Mars. Based on earlier announcements that should be happening soon, but its always something decades off that gets forgotten about until it gets announced as a great new idea by the next President.
Part of the reason is that talk is cheap I agree. But the second reason I'd give is more nobel than Mr Meeks cynical suggestion - by floating different ideas people talk about them yes but then you can see the ideas that do take off, and when problems get discussed some people set out to start solving those problems.
If an idea is floated and the problems get solved relatively easily then that idea -even if it was originally just a kite - can end up a reality.
Totally agree. And it's right to study the feasibility - although I am puzzled why we're discussing it now, since the study has not reported and nor has it just been commissioned. Every new idea needs space to germinate and survive being a seedling - it is too easy to stamp on them at the earliest stage. I think Boris understands this and does not mind a bunch of non starters as long as one or two are amazing.
You don’t need a feasibility study.
We’ve just done it.
It isn’t feasible.
No you haven't. You've neatly and elegantly calculated that the road tolls won't repay the investment. I bow to no-one in my respect for your experience and abilities but that isn't a full feasibility study.
It was a calculation that the current traffic levels would not pay for a bridge. But then, the current traffic levels wouldn't justify *any* transport link anywhere. The reason for build such things is, usually, to *increase* capacity in the hope/belief that traffic will increase to consume said capacity.
So Britain had the 3rd fastest growing economy in the G7 in 2019
LOL@Remainers
As I pointed out above ALL of the UK GDP increase in 2019 is due to increases in public spending and to a smaller extent households spending money they don't have. The productive part of the economy went backwards last year.
Which raises the question why we didn't vote Corbyn. GDP would increase even faster.
If Boris / Dominic were serious about a link between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, instead of a bridge it would be a tunnel from Red Bay to Southend, Kintyre, a motorway to Claonaig, a tunnel to Lochranza, another motorway across the Cock of Arran, another tunnel to north Bute, more motorway across Bute, a further tunnel to Cumbrae, continuing the motorway to the final tunnel to Hunterston, to join the motorway from Hunterston to the M74 south of Larkhall. Cheaper and safer than the Boris Bridge. However, if the bridge were built, it would be an ideal site for July 12th marches for HYFUD and his friends, so that normal folk in Belfast and Glasgow could get on with their lives and be able to cross the road.
As someone who has occasionally hired politicians (and others) to give speeches at work one of the reasons you do it, regardless of the speaker, is that big name brings in people in your industry/clients/suppliers you don't normally get to see regularly, if at all.
So your star speaker is a former PM, chuck in some decent food and drinks, and it brings in the people you want to see.
They act as a glorious networking event.
Whatever Theresa's pulling power as a speaker, isn't it also a sort of reward for services rendered whilst in office? Serving PM provides business with several million pounds worth of contracts. There is no bribery and corruption, but an unspoken expectation that at some point pleasant things could happen. It's very British.
Interesting to note that Mr Eagles left out the most important question in his costing of the project. One that renders his analysis useless. Has he considered a job advising Jeremy Corbyn?
I must say i liked the suggestion in the article about the IRA trying to blow up the bridge with by setting off the the dumped munitions. This (among other things) illustrates the authors lack of knowledge of engineering and explosives. But hey.
Fake news, I haven't costed this project.
Quite honestly, I wouldn't even know where to start.
1) You left out the critical part of any analysis for a new transport link - not just the current traffic level, but any analysis of how traffic levels might change with extra capacity.
Imagine an analysis of HS2 that said - we take the existing traffic level and assume that HS2 will carry the same.
2) Non direct benefits not considered. When looking at transport links, the knock on effects must be considered.
I estimated the flows at full capacity 100% of the time all year round.
That isn't realistic even by itself.
Then, I doubled all the traffic just for good measure.
It still comes nowhere close to paying even half of its way.
You don't have to do Uber micro analysis when the conclusions are that stark.
As someone who has occasionally hired politicians (and others) to give speeches at work one of the reasons you do it, regardless of the speaker, is that big name brings in people in your industry/clients/suppliers you don't normally get to see regularly, if at all.
So your star speaker is a former PM, chuck in some decent food and drinks, and it brings in the people you want to see.
They act as a glorious networking event.
To be honest, if she actually opened up (no, I'm not holding my breath either) I'd actually be quite interested in what Theresa May had to say.
So Britain had the 3rd fastest growing economy in the G7 in 2019
LOL@Remainers
3rd out of 7 is, well, it's above average!
It's certainly not the apocalypse. What can possibly explain the below-Brexit performances of France, Germany and Italy???
Brexit???
Also, what ARE Remainers going to do if Brexit turns out OK, indeed pretty good, considering (which I expect). The levels of cognitive dissonance might be actively fatal. We may look upon Jolyon Maugham, in a tiny kimono, hammering a Boxing Day fox to death, as a time of relative Remoaner sanity.
I voted leave, did a Mea Culpa when I realised they were serious about leaving the EEA and became a #remainernow. Brexit isn't going to turn out ok if the Tories are serious about imposing border checks on everything in January. Business who imports and exports- like most business - needs to know what 2021 looks like. And "deal with it" doesn't cut the mustard when Govey says it'll be 2025 before we get back to border process as simple as we have now.
I entirely disagree. I reckon the natural vigour of capitalism will overcome all this trivial shit, and both sides will - in the end - find a begrudging but common cause.
And because Britain will be less encumbered with bureaucracy, and able to elect and eject all those who make our laws, we will do better.
It's that simple.
I agree. We can only speculate about the good that the removal of a whole layer of patronage, often working counter to Britain's interests, will do.
Interesting to note that Mr Eagles left out the most important question in his costing of the project. One that renders his analysis useless. Has he considered a job advising Jeremy Corbyn?
I must say i liked the suggestion in the article about the IRA trying to blow up the bridge with by setting off the the dumped munitions. This (among other things) illustrates the authors lack of knowledge of engineering and explosives. But hey.
Fake news, I haven't costed this project.
Quite honestly, I wouldn't even know where to start.
1) You left out the critical part of any analysis for a new transport link - not just the current traffic level, but any analysis of how traffic levels might change with extra capacity.
Imagine an analysis of HS2 that said - we take the existing traffic level and assume that HS2 will carry the same.
2) Non direct benefits not considered. When looking at transport links, the knock on effects must be considered.
I estimated the flows at full capacity 100% of the time all year round.
That isn't realistic even by itself.
Then, I doubled all the traffic just for good measure.
It still comes nowhere close to paying even half of its way.
You don't have to do Uber micro analysis when the conclusions are that stark.
Any rational analysis of such a project would have to take into account potential traffic increases and secondary effects.
IIRC HS2, in terms of tickets that could be sold to 100% of it's capacity does not payback. It is the secondary effects that have been calculated to give its level of return.
Can I ask what involvement you have in business / logistics /import and export etc? I am fine with the "vigour of capitalism" but vast amounts of added red tape costs money and delayed transit costs money and disrupted supply chains cost money and all 3 are now government policy.
When you say "less encumbered with bureaucracy" perhaps you can assist. Right now my company buys stuff with zero checks and zero paperwork. And then sells it with zero checks and zero paperwork. In January there will be lots of checks and paperwork for bits coming in and finished goods going out. I need to be proposing prices for products in the next month for next year and nobody has a clue what the cost will be of the mass of extra bureaucracy.
Perhaps you can advise the British Retail Consortium on their specific detailed real world list of questions that no-one other than you can answer.
I'm a sole trader and in the last tax year I turned over half a million pounds, mainly from the EU, so, yeah, I know what I am talking about.
Fab. You buy and sell stuff. So not in manufacturing at all. And half a million is a drop in the ocean compared to the manufacturing industries providing very detailed commentary on exactly where your lack of knowledge may be wrong.
No checks now, no paperwork now, no bureaucracy now. Vs lots of all of them in January with unspecified £costs. Fun times.
So Britain had the 3rd fastest growing economy in the G7 in 2019
LOL@Remainers
As I pointed out above ALL of the UK GDP increase in 2019 is due to increases in public spending and to a smaller extent households spending money they don't have. The productive part of the economy went backwards last year.
Which raises the question why we didn't vote Corbyn. GDP would increase even faster.
As someone who has occasionally hired politicians (and others) to give speeches at work one of the reasons you do it, regardless of the speaker, is that big name brings in people in your industry/clients/suppliers you don't normally get to see regularly, if at all.
So your star speaker is a former PM, chuck in some decent food and drinks, and it brings in the people you want to see.
They act as a glorious networking event.
To be honest, if she actually opened up (no, I'm not holding my breath either) I'd actually be quite interested in what Theresa May had to say.
As a PM, not the most inspiring of speakers. However, speaking as a cynic, almost certainly better than the majority of “motivational” speakers I have been subjected to
Interesting to note that Mr Eagles left out the most important question in his costing of the project. One that renders his analysis useless. Has he considered a job advising Jeremy Corbyn?
I must say i liked the suggestion in the article about the IRA trying to blow up the bridge with by setting off the the dumped munitions. This (among other things) illustrates the authors lack of knowledge of engineering and explosives. But hey.
Yes, it was a very serious suggestion, nearly as serious as radioactive fruits de mer.
Interesting to note that Mr Eagles left out the most important question in his costing of the project. One that renders his analysis useless. Has he considered a job advising Jeremy Corbyn?
I must say i liked the suggestion in the article about the IRA trying to blow up the bridge with by setting off the the dumped munitions. This (among other things) illustrates the authors lack of knowledge of engineering and explosives. But hey.
Fake news, I haven't costed this project.
Quite honestly, I wouldn't even know where to start.
Did anyone "cost" the Taj Mahal?
I doubt it would have come in as "value for money"
There's a serious point here. Some projects have a symbolic, emotional or aesthetic value which far outweighs their actual cost, over time.
The bridge would have a tremendous symbolic value - as the final and possibly most ruinous bribe paid to Scotland and Northern Ireland with English taxpayers' money. Finally completed, no doubt, about five minutes before they both vote to sod off.
The bridge is a completely fucking stupid idea. I could just about get on board with a tunnel from Anglesey to Dublin which makes a lot more sense. But that wouldn't achieve whatever Boris wants to on linking NI with the mainland.
Why are we discussing a bridge that will never be built rather than the global pandemic that is about to change globalisation forever and kill many millions of people in the process?
Can I ask what involvement you have in business / logistics /import and export etc? I am fine with the "vigour of capitalism" but vast amounts of added red tape costs money and delayed transit costs money and disrupted supply chains cost money and all 3 are now government policy.
When you say "less encumbered with bureaucracy" perhaps you can assist. Right now my company buys stuff with zero checks and zero paperwork. And then sells it with zero checks and zero paperwork. In January there will be lots of checks and paperwork for bits coming in and finished goods going out. I need to be proposing prices for products in the next month for next year and nobody has a clue what the cost will be of the mass of extra bureaucracy.
Perhaps you can advise the British Retail Consortium on their specific detailed real world list of questions that no-one other than you can answer.
I'm a sole trader and in the last tax year I turned over half a million pounds, mainly from the EU, so, yeah, I know what I am talking about.
Fab. You buy and sell stuff. So not in manufacturing at all. And half a million is a drop in the ocean compared to the manufacturing industries providing very detailed commentary on exactly where your lack of knowledge may be wrong.
No checks now, no paperwork now, no bureaucracy now. Vs lots of all of them in January with unspecified £costs. Fun times.
I personally manufacture stuff and sell it to the EU, all by myself. And in the tax year last audited, I turned over half a mill. So, go and shove an artisanal hand carved Yorkshire dildo up yer fecking arse
That's a rather niche product to turnover £500,000 a year with...
Interesting to note that Mr Eagles left out the most important question in his costing of the project. One that renders his analysis useless. Has he considered a job advising Jeremy Corbyn?
I must say i liked the suggestion in the article about the IRA trying to blow up the bridge with by setting off the the dumped munitions. This (among other things) illustrates the authors lack of knowledge of engineering and explosives. But hey.
Fake news, I haven't costed this project.
Quite honestly, I wouldn't even know where to start.
1) You left out the critical part of any analysis for a new transport link - not just the current traffic level, but any analysis of how traffic levels might change with extra capacity.
Imagine an analysis of HS2 that said - we take the existing traffic level and assume that HS2 will carry the same.
2) Non direct benefits not considered. When looking at transport links, the knock on effects must be considered.
I estimated the flows at full capacity 100% of the time all year round.
That isn't realistic even by itself.
Then, I doubled all the traffic just for good measure.
It still comes nowhere close to paying even half of its way.
You don't have to do Uber micro analysis when the conclusions are that stark.
Any rational analysis of such a project would have to take into account potential traffic increases and secondary effects.
IIRC HS2, in terms of tickets that could be sold to 100% of it's capacity does not payback. It is the secondary effects that have been calculated to give its level of return.
That's nonsense. I've explained there's no way a secondary effect (which would be by definition less than the primary) would make up the difference. And I've also explained how a doubling of traffic wouldn't do it either. Neither would both combined.
You like this project, and don't like the business case conclusion.
You don't like HS2, and don't like its business case conclusion.
Can I ask what involvement you have in business / logistics /import and export etc? I am fine with the "vigour of capitalism" but vast amounts of added red tape costs money and delayed transit costs money and disrupted supply chains cost money and all 3 are now government policy.
When you say "less encumbered with bureaucracy" perhaps you can assist. Right now my company buys stuff with zero checks and zero paperwork. And then sells it with zero checks and zero paperwork. In January there will be lots of checks and paperwork for bits coming in and finished goods going out. I need to be proposing prices for products in the next month for next year and nobody has a clue what the cost will be of the mass of extra bureaucracy.
Perhaps you can advise the British Retail Consortium on their specific detailed real world list of questions that no-one other than you can answer.
I'm a sole trader and in the last tax year I turned over half a million pounds, mainly from the EU, so, yeah, I know what I am talking about.
Fab. You buy and sell stuff. So not in manufacturing at all. And half a million is a drop in the ocean compared to the manufacturing industries providing very detailed commentary on exactly where your lack of knowledge may be wrong.
No checks now, no paperwork now, no bureaucracy now. Vs lots of all of them in January with unspecified £costs. Fun times.
I personally manufacture stuff and sell it to the EU, all by myself. And in the tax year last audited, I turned over half a mill. So, go and shove an artisanal hand carved Yorkshire dildo up yer fecking arse
To quote Dr Evil, "riiiiiight"
You should go run the car industry. The chemicals industry. Pharmaceuticals. Food. Logistics. You know so much more than they all do.
Comments
If you think Bloomberg never wins at a brokered convention and won’t get a plurality of delegates from primaries unless his national polling is transformed, then what do you think his real chances are? 8/1, 10/1, 12/1 or 25/1?
I can’t see him being north of about 15/1 myself. Yet.
We’ve just done it.
It isn’t feasible.
I’m just pointing out there is next to no business case for it.
Jeremy Corbyn has a right to feel aggrieved. Just think what GDP growth would be if he were in power.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1227181655774855168
I’ve provided some facts and assumptions that show it to have no business case. My personal opinion is that it is quite an interesting prospective project.
They are two different things.
Obvs.
This is the problem with Johnson - he was always likely to see spending money as a good thing for its own sake, without any real thought for financial discipline or what that meant for the long term. You don’t have to be a fan of austerity to recognise that.
https://twitter.com/C9J/status/1227666876819480576?s=20
The Nevada Democratic Party hasn't yet found a way to even count the votes.
Presumably she is telling them all about how to negotiate.
Bloomberg was "A lifelong Democrat before seeking elective office, Bloomberg switched his party registration in 2001 to run for mayor as a Republican. He defeated opponent Mark J. Green in a close election held just weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks. He won a second term in 2005 and left the Republican Party two years later."
So far the United States has been lucky that California was a swing state only in 1976, if they mattered it would take about a year to find who won a Presidential Election.
When Boris' bridge was discussed a few days ago they specifically mentioned the Denmark/Sweden bridge - I believe the maximum depth for that one is 40m.
Isn't the Irish Sea 350m deep where Boris wants to build? I'm not a bridge builder, but I suspect even Putin might admit that was a little too ambitious.
A type of golden parachute.
They like their new judges young so they can stay for almost forever.
All true of course, but there is still the warmish glow of remembering that someone has fleeced PWC of £96K, which in itself is a sort of public service, for providing a speech most of us would happily pay not to hear. Perhaps the heating system of Sonning church needs a bit of cash to go carbon neutral and TM has decided to chip in?
When Boris learns he could be earning £10,000,000 a year for a couple of speeches and fete openings it might be tempting enough for him to resign. He seems motivated by money, so I live in hope.
The Bridge would almost certainly run an operating profit. That is, it's revenues would almost certainly exceed the costs of keeping it open. (Although that might change over time as maintenance costs rise with age.)
But it would never make an economic return. It would never pay back its capital costs, or come even come close. The idea that operating profits could even cover interest payments in incredible.
With HS2, calculating the economic benefits is hard. There is additional capacity on the main line at peak hours. How much that will be utilised, and at what price, is key. Furthermore, part of the benefits of HS2 come in terms of increased capacity for other services as express trains are moved off old lines.
Nevertheless, a back of the envelope calculation for revenues is not that hard. HS2 probably increases revenues by around £1.5bn per year directly, and then you can add a figure for the benefits of more capacity on other lines. We then have to calculate an operating margin - because trains have more expenses than bridges. (Although the civil engineering around the trainline - i.e. the trench that is dug out - will likely last longer than the bridge.) But let's assume that you end up with operating profits of £1bn/year. On a £60bn cost, you don't quite make the interest payments, but over the course of 100 years, you at least have profits that exceed the cost of construction.
They're doing it the way it's always been done. They're abandoning the app, and will have precinct captains write down the results and then phone and email them into the central office.
I have little doubt that it will run as smoothly as it always does.
So your star speaker is a former PM, chuck in some decent food and drinks, and it brings in the people you want to see.
They act as a glorious networking event.
I must say i liked the suggestion in the article about the IRA trying to blow up the bridge with by setting off the the dumped munitions. This (among other things) illustrates the authors lack of knowledge of engineering and explosives. But hey.
Quite honestly, I wouldn't even know where to start.
But she wouldn't be in the my top ten speakers I'd hire.
Imagine an analysis of HS2 that said - we take the existing traffic level and assume that HS2 will carry the same.
2) Non direct benefits not considered. When looking at transport links, the knock on effects must be considered.
They think they are doing everything perfectly and will continue to do so until the day they die.
She clearly had a shit time being PM, and has precisely zero legacy.
Why wouldn't you try and make a bit of cash out of it?
If roads and bridges were only ever built if they were self-funded from tolls there wouldn't be many roads etc built.
When you say "less encumbered with bureaucracy" perhaps you can assist. Right now my company buys stuff with zero checks and zero paperwork. And then sells it with zero checks and zero paperwork. In January there will be lots of checks and paperwork for bits coming in and finished goods going out. I need to be proposing prices for products in the next month for next year and nobody has a clue what the cost will be of the mass of extra bureaucracy.
Perhaps you can advise the British Retail Consortium on their specific detailed real world list of questions that no-one other than you can answer.
The conclusions won't be any different from the back of a fag packet though.
If it goes ahead it will be entirely political and will need heavy subsidy from the public purse.
Which raises the question why we didn't vote Corbyn. GDP would increase even faster.
That isn't realistic even by itself.
Then, I doubled all the traffic just for good measure.
It still comes nowhere close to paying even half of its way.
You don't have to do Uber micro analysis when the conclusions are that stark.
IIRC HS2, in terms of tickets that could be sold to 100% of it's capacity does not payback. It is the secondary effects that have been calculated to give its level of return.
No checks now, no paperwork now, no bureaucracy now. Vs lots of all of them in January with unspecified £costs. Fun times.
You like this project, and don't like the business case conclusion.
You don't like HS2, and don't like its business case conclusion.
It really is as simple as that.
You should go run the car industry. The chemicals industry. Pharmaceuticals. Food. Logistics. You know so much more than they all do.