That's a good summary of British policy. The idea was to make the EU "broad but deep": Involve more countries, make everyone move at the pace of the slowest and throw a bit of sand in the gears. Where it came off the rails was where John Major could no longer persuade his party to go as slow as he could plausibly get the core to go, so he stopped resisting a "two-speed Europe" and started trying to get opt-outs. From that point on the policy no longer served its original goals: If countries can integrate at different speeds, adding slow ones doesn't slow the core down.
That is a good point Edmund and also explains why it was so disastrous for UK interests that Brown conceded in the Lisbon treaty that the EZ countries can effectively agree additional integration without our involvement within the EU structures and legal competences. At that point the brakes were thrown in the bin and the development of an EZ super bloc was assured. The man really was and is an idiot.
It doesn't make much difference whether integration happens formally within the EU or not. If Brown hadn't agreed to that the core would have made different institutions that were formally separate from the EU, as they initially did with Schengen. The result would be similar, except the UK would have zero, instead of minimal, influence. The basic reality that informs British EU policy is that the UK can't stop the core from integrating. The UK never wanted united Europe, but its choices are to participate and slow things down marginally or not participate and let it go ahead as fast as the core feel like.
That said, what the UK has ended up with arguably gets the worst of both worlds.
Imagine if the BNP came up with the idea of a protectionist state that had free trade & movement of workers with European countries while needing permits and quotas when dealing with Africa and Asia
Initial problem. BNP and idea in the same sentence.
Second; assuming the racism in the proposal you'd need to define Africa and Asia. As Vince C never tires of pointing out quotas create their own problems.
Third, you might keep out the likes of Kevin P............
David, A block of wood could do as good a job when they can borrow nearly £3B every week. He has managed nothing other than to show he can borrow as much or more than labour could. Nothing whatsoever is fixed if you need to borrow north of £2B per week to keep afloat.
I agree, it is not fixed. but borrowing £2bn a week is much better than borrowing £3bn. Having a plan by which you stop borrowing at all is important too. So is having at least an aspiration to start paying it all back.
By the election we will be down to borrowing £1.5bn a week. This is not good. But considering where we started and how the world economy has performed over the last 5 years it is little short of miraculous.
Then the British people face a very important choice. Do they continue to take the medicine and endure considerable discomfort as a result in the expectation of becoming well or do they go on another binge? I wish the answer was obvious but it isn't.
David, We can but hope, but I do not see much of a grand plan and have zero confidence in Cameron and Osborne. I fear we will be unlikely to get out of it long term, they will overheat the south east and London as usual to inflate it away and destroy the rest of the country in the process. I believe they are stupid enough for it.
Malcolm I think you have there touched on the biggest single problem in the economic management of the UK. The economy of London in particular and the south east in general is far more competitive and productive than the rest of the UK and really require a different mix of economic policies to control their tendency to overheat such as higher interest rates and much small government deficits.
At the moment the policies for these areas are not idealised because it is recognised that the rest of the UK would struggle to cope and a balance is found with some adverse consequences all round.
If Scotland becomes independent then the London/south east will be even more dominant and their determination of economic policy will be even greater. Interest rates will almost certainly increase more quickly and monetary policy will be tighter to restrain inflationary pressures. The currency will probably rise too.
All of these will be imposed on Scotland with potentially quite serious adverse effects which will be completely ignored by the BoE.
All of these will be imposed on Scotland with potentially quite serious adverse effects which will be completely ignored by the BoE.
David, we have the dilemma of voting NO and going down due to continuing policies suited to London or we take a bold step and take a chance that we can do something different on our own , we may still go down but at least we will have a chance to try something different. Far better to fail with your own ideas than with someone else's.
@surbiton posted- More immigration, more young workforce, more taxpayers, prosperity for all !
You really believe that crap,more people looking for housing,health centres full,hospitals can't cope,infrastruture at breaking point,more water shortages ,shortage of school places and Quality of life starts to suffer.
Inconveniently for you it is the truth. Why is the United States even today such an engine for growth ? Because for the last 400 years, it has had immigrants coming in and re-energising its economy. Only the source of the immigrants have changed. So too has Australia.
Japan, on the other hand, is a sinking country ! Britain will grow better than Europe because it has allowed until now immigrants with enterprise to come in and enrich the economy.
I find it strange when the Tory supporters here hail the highest level of employment ever. Yes, but they are mostly immigrants !
Immigration has always taken place ever since the dawn of civilisation ! UK is not the only place immigrants come in , despite what right wing Tories and Kippers would like us to believe.
Those opposing immigration can stand like King Canute at Dover and order the tide not to come in. Humans will always move as they always have.
The really interesting thing about the quote from the Spanish foreign minister discussed downthread is its confirmation of how much of a whip hand the rUK will have in any divorce negotiations with Scotland. Basically, nothing happens in international law until the rUK says so. All promises and claims about what will happen in the case of a Yes vote need to be seen through that prism.
All of these will be imposed on Scotland with potentially quite serious adverse effects which will be completely ignored by the BoE.
I have deleted the "detritus". You 'northern-folk' seem to over-wrap your perspectives. How shall we begin:
To build Crossrail London has to take on another tax (both business and residents): Why? Because any [UK} state-expenditure has to have a kick-back elsewhere in the "Greater" UK. For Crossrail that should have been was Manchester; Cronie and Gormless decided otherwise....
But; the high-and-mighty "Barnett" bespoke that Scotland needed the money (being poor-and-meek). Thus Londoners have to fund the catastrophic Edinborough tram system. [Funded; but dysfunctional....]
I have traveled on the Manckies' tram system: I doubt few Scots have been on Edinboroughs! As with the UK "Super-computers" - funded by English tax-payers (despite UMIST being a better home for limited funds) - the era of Scots' politicians' decadence will soon be over. Scotland is a drain....
The really interesting thing about the quote from the Spanish foreign minister discussed downthread is its confirmation of how much of a whip hand the rUK will have in any divorce negotiations with Scotland. Basically, nothing happens in international law until the rUK says so. All promises and claims about what will happen in the case of a Yes vote need to be seen through that prism.
SO, they have already said it all in the Edinburgh agreement , the deal is done , dusted and signed. They will have no whip hand , that is just fanciful thinking. Reality is they will be too busy crapping themselves with the loss and impact to their willy waving ability that they will be very very pleasant to deal with.
The really interesting thing about the quote from the Spanish foreign minister discussed downthread is its confirmation of how much of a whip hand the rUK will have in any divorce negotiations with Scotland. Basically, nothing happens in international law until the rUK says so. All promises and claims about what will happen in the case of a Yes vote need to be seen through that prism.
Isn't it lucky that George is such a generous, forgiving and honourable man? And such a pushover in negotiations. Ask the Liberal Democrats.
@surbiton posted- More immigration, more young workforce, more taxpayers, prosperity for all !
You really believe that crap,more people looking for housing,health centres full,hospitals can't cope,infrastruture at breaking point,more water shortages ,shortage of school places and Quality of life starts to suffer.
Inconveniently for you it is the truth. Why is the United States even today such an engine for growth ? Because for the last 400 years, it has had immigrants coming in and re-energising its economy. Only the source of the immigrants have changed. So too has Australia.
Japan, on the other hand, is a sinking country ! Britain will grow better than Europe because it has allowed until now immigrants with enterprise to come in and enrich the economy.
I find it strange when the Tory supporters here hail the highest level of employment ever. Yes, but they are mostly immigrants !
Immigration has always taken place ever since the dawn of civilisation ! UK is not the only place immigrants come in , despite what right wing Tories and Kippers would like us to believe.
Those opposing immigration can stand like King Canute at Dover and order the tide not to come in. Humans will always move as they always have.
Very few, if any, people oppose immigration, or say that it hasn't been useful and isn't necessary.
Left wingers like to exaggerate the argument of those who want a limit on immigration because it suits their ideology and gives them a chance to smear their opponent.
But there is a huge difference between open borders and controlled immigration by visa.
I would say the open borders policy is almost as mad as zero immigration.
But why do Europhiles and left wingers in general, discriminate between European workers and those from Asia and Africa? Why not have controlled immigration from all over the globe?
All of these will be imposed on Scotland with potentially quite serious adverse effects which will be completely ignored by the BoE.
I have deleted the "detritus". You 'northern-folk' seem to over-wrap your perspectives. How shall we begin:
To build Crossrail London has to take on another tax (both business and residents): Why? Because any [UK} state-expenditure has to have a kick-back elsewhere in the "Greater" UK. For Crossrail that should have been was Manchester; Cronie and Gormless decided otherwise....
But; the high-and-mighty "Barnett" bespoke that Scotland needed the money (being poor-and-meek). Thus Londoners have to fund the catastrophic Edinborough tram system. [Funded; but dysfunctional....]
I have traveled on the Manckies' tram system: I doubt few Scots have been on Edinboroughs! As with the UK "Super-computers" - funded by English tax-payers (despite UMIST being a better home for limited funds) - the era of Scots' politicians' decadence will soon be over. Scotland is a drain....
Fluffy, usual total bollocks from you. Crossrail was counted as special project , as like so many others in and around M25, so that we specifically did not benefit. We have to pay for all these infrastructure projects which are mainly excluded from normal budgets specifically to rob us. HS2 is latest plan to rob us , we get to pay 10% of it. Dracula was less of a bloodsucker than Westminster. Edinburgh tram system was funded entirely with Scottish money , as per Commonwealth games , even though we had to pay 10% of London Olympics. Dick Turpin at least had the decency to wear a mask.
All of these will be imposed on Scotland with potentially quite serious adverse effects which will be completely ignored by the BoE.
I have deleted the "detritus". You 'northern-folk' seem to over-wrap your perspectives. How shall we begin:
To build Crossrail London has to take on another tax (both business and residents): Why? Because any [UK} state-expenditure has to have a kick-back elsewhere in the "Greater" UK. For Crossrail that should have been was Manchester; Cronie and Gormless decided otherwise....
But; the high-and-mighty "Barnett" bespoke that Scotland needed the money (being poor-and-meek). Thus Londoners have to fund the catastrophic Edinborough tram system. [Funded; but dysfunctional....]
I have traveled on the Manckies' tram system: I doubt few Scots have been on Edinboroughs! As with the UK "Super-computers" - funded by English tax-payers (despite UMIST being a better home for limited funds) - the era of Scots' politicians' decadence will soon be over. Scotland is a drain....
'Drain' may not have been the happiest metaphor (as well as an inaccurate one), given that the replacement of London's sewerage is yet another so-called "UK-wide" project which is being left outwith Barnett, like the Olympics! We do have drains and toilets up here too you know!
@surbiton posted- More immigration, more young workforce, more taxpayers, prosperity for all !
You really believe that crap,more people looking for housing,health centres full,hospitals can't cope,infrastruture at breaking point,more water shortages ,shortage of school places and Quality of life starts to suffer.
Inconveniently for you it is the truth. Why is the United States even today such an engine for growth ? Because for the last 400 years, it has had immigrants coming in and re-energising its economy. Only the source of the immigrants have changed. So too has Australia.
Japan, on the other hand, is a sinking country ! Britain will grow better than Europe because it has allowed until now immigrants with enterprise to come in and enrich the economy.
I find it strange when the Tory supporters here hail the highest level of employment ever. Yes, but they are mostly immigrants !
Immigration has always taken place ever since the dawn of civilisation ! UK is not the only place immigrants come in , despite what right wing Tories and Kippers would like us to believe.
Those opposing immigration can stand like King Canute at Dover and order the tide not to come in. Humans will always move as they always have.
An argument which completely ignores the fact that the US is a vast land with large amounts of natural resources and the ability to soak up a far larger population than it currently contains. The same applies to Australia.
It also ignores the fact that the US has not followed the economically suicidal welfare systems so beloved by European countries and the Left which is fundamentally incompatible with large scale migration.
As someone 'of the Left' you still have to answer the basic question of what do you want. Ever increasing immigration or the Welfare state? You cannot have both.
I'll still vote to stray in if we ever have another referendum, though.
Poetry.
Touché. I laughed too when I read your post!
Incidentally, did Churchill not offer a "solemn union" to France in 1940? I know that circumstances were somewhat desperate at the time, but that doesn't suggest he saw Britain as outside being Godfather. Or even benevolent uncle.
Actually, It is poetic I think it's a subtle way of saying what I believe will/may happen. Respect Not sure about Churchill although I have read a lot of his writings---long ago.
All of these will be imposed on Scotland with potentially quite serious adverse effects which will be completely ignored by the BoE.
I have deleted the "detritus". You 'northern-folk' seem to over-wrap your perspectives. How shall we begin:
To build Crossrail London has to take on another tax (both business and residents): Why? Because any [UK} state-expenditure has to have a kick-back elsewhere in the "Greater" UK. For Crossrail that should have been was Manchester; Cronie and Gormless decided otherwise....
But; the high-and-mighty "Barnett" bespoke that Scotland needed the money (being poor-and-meek). Thus Londoners have to fund the catastrophic Edinborough tram system. [Funded; but dysfunctional....]
I have traveled on the Manckies' tram system: I doubt few Scots have been on Edinboroughs! As with the UK "Super-computers" - funded by English tax-payers (despite UMIST being a better home for limited funds) - the era of Scots' politicians' decadence will soon be over. Scotland is a drain....
'Drain' may not have been the happiest metaphor (as well as an inaccurate one), given that the replacement of London's sewerage is yet another so-called "UK-wide" project which is being left outwith Barnett, like the Olympics! We do have drains and toilets up here too you know!
I wonder what great benefits we will get from the London sewers, will they be more than the Olympics provided for our cash.
All of these will be imposed on Scotland with potentially quite serious adverse effects which will be completely ignored by the BoE.
I have deleted the "detritus". You 'northern-folk' seem to over-wrap your perspectives. How shall we begin:
To build Crossrail London has to take on another tax (both business and residents): Why? Because any [UK} state-expenditure has to have a kick-back elsewhere in the "Greater" UK. For Crossrail that should have been was Manchester; Cronie and Gormless decided otherwise....
But; the high-and-mighty "Barnett" bespoke that Scotland needed the money (being poor-and-meek). Thus Londoners have to fund the catastrophic Edinborough tram system. [Funded; but dysfunctional....]
I have traveled on the Manckies' tram system: I doubt few Scots have been on Edinboroughs! As with the UK "Super-computers" - funded by English tax-payers (despite UMIST being a better home for limited funds) - the era of Scots' politicians' decadence will soon be over. Scotland is a drain....
Very few Scots will have travelled on the Edinburgh tram, as it still isn't open. It's rare to see a project that matches all three parts of Jessop's Second Rule so successfully: it will be delivered three years late, will be over-budget by £500 million and with one route, rather than the two planned.
The core problems are far from being the SNP's fault, although they and their successor governments will be left with the white elephant hanging around their necks.
I predict within a couple of decades it will be gone. The public does not seem to have much appetite for the sensible extensions (e.g. Leith) to be built, and the soon-to-be-opened run to the airport is farcical. When it comes time for millions to be spent on an upgrade, the whole lot will be abandoned.
It's a shame, and I'd love to know more details on who the project was so tragically mismanaged. I've heard some horror stories about the scheduling of road works ...
I could also mention the Alloa to Kincardine line, which was reopened in 2008. Costs rocketed from £37m to £85m and was delivered nearly three years late. After only five years, it is going to have £17m spent on it due to the line's poor condition.
The Borders Railway will show whether Scotland can actually do this sort of thing ...
As someone 'of the Left' you still have to answer the basic question of what do you want. Ever increasing immigration or the Welfare state? You cannot have both.
I'd try to refute that claim but I don't think I understand the argument for it in the first place. If immigrants move to country X and some of them work and create wealth, they support that country's welfare state as well as drawing on it. If they took more out of the welfare state over their lifetimes, interest-adjusted, than the native population, then they'd be a net burden on it, but to make your claim you'd still have to show that the burden multiplied by the rate of increase was unsustainable. But as it is I don't think it's even clear that they're a net burden at all, probably the opposite.
I see some of the Scottish nationalists are trying to resurrect the line that the Treaty of Union is a binding constitutional document that cannot be altered by Parliament. If that is the case, as the treaty contains no provision for the dissolution of the union, it follows that Scottish independence is, and always will be unlawful. It is a heretical and incoherent argument.
As someone 'of the Left' you still have to answer the basic question of what do you want. Ever increasing immigration or the Welfare state? You cannot have both.
I'd try to refute that claim but I don't think I understand the argument for it in the first place. If immigrants move to country X and some of them work and create wealth, they support that country's welfare state as well as drawing on it. If they took more out of the welfare state over their lifetimes, interest-adjusted, than the native population, then they'd be a net burden on it, but to make your claim you'd still have to show that the burden multiplied by the rate of increase was unsustainable. But as it is I don't think it's even clear that they're a net burden at all, probably the opposite.
Not at all. Given the current structure of our welfare system and state provision of services, including retirement age, by importing labour you are also importing all the welfare liabilities that go with it. That means that as the new immigrant population ages and retires you need to continue to import more and more labour to support that population.
The problem with that is firstly that there is an absolute limit to how many people can be accommodated in a developed high population density country like the UK (which is why analogies with the US or Australia are so wrong) and secondly that you are relying upon an ever expanding economy to provide those people with employment as so ensure they do not end up on benefits.
Even with the obvious greater willingness of immigrants to work compared to some of the established population, that is not something that can be guaranteed as it depends on benign economic conditions never stopping - no recessions.
It also requires a huge increase in government spending on basic infrastructure such as schools, hospitals and local services which - no matter what stripe they might be - all givernments are unwilling or unable to provide.
Of course you could just be suggesting that we allow immigrants in as long as they work and the throw them out when they reach retirement age but I am not sure that is a position that would be acceptable to most people (myself included).
@surbiton posted- More immigration, more young workforce, more taxpayers, prosperity for all !
You really believe that crap,more people looking for housing,health centres full,hospitals can't cope,infrastruture at breaking point,more water shortages ,shortage of school places and Quality of life starts to suffer.
Inconveniently for you it is the truth. Why is the United States even today such an engine for growth ? Because for the last 400 years, it has had immigrants coming in and re-energising its economy. Only the source of the immigrants have changed. So too has Australia.
Japan, on the other hand, is a sinking country ! Britain will grow better than Europe because it has allowed until now immigrants with enterprise to come in and enrich the economy.
I find it strange when the Tory supporters here hail the highest level of employment ever. Yes, but they are mostly immigrants !
Immigration has always taken place ever since the dawn of civilisation ! UK is not the only place immigrants come in , despite what right wing Tories and Kippers would like us to believe.
Those opposing immigration can stand like King Canute at Dover and order the tide not to come in. Humans will always move as they always have.
Your argument falls at the first hurdle of your post,have you seen the land mass of USA/Australia,compared to England.
This worryingly crowded isle: England is officially Europe's most densely packed country
And by the way mate,it's not just tory/ukip supporters worried about mass immigration,I'm from a former labour voting family who live in the area's where most of the poor unskilled immigration as come and will be coming from Eastern Europe.
SouthamObserver, as usual, has many valuable comments to make.
Realpolitik will decide what happens if we, Catalonia, or any other part of a current EU member state votes for independence.
That is, the realpolitik of dealing with an actual situation, as opposed to the political posturing that takes place in response to the possibility of such a situation occurring.
We know that the Tories and Rajoy's Partido Popular have an agreement to present a common front against their states being diminished by parts of them leaving, and their media supporters use arguments from one country in the very dissimilar circumstances of the other.
The article in the Commentator that TSE linked to last night falls into that category, as the Wee Ginger Dug (a Scots linguist and journalist) explains -
Not at all. Given the current structure of our welfare system and state provision of services, including retirement age, by importing labour you are also importing all the welfare liabilities that go with it. That means that as the new immigrant population ages and retires you need to continue to import more and more labour to support that population.
The problem with that is firstly that there is an absolute limit to how many people can be accommodated in a developed high population density country like the UK (which is why analogies with the US or Australia are so wrong) and secondly that you are relying upon an ever expanding economy to provide those people with employment as so ensure they do not end up on benefits.
Even with the obvious greater willingness of immigrants to work compared to some of the established population, that is not something that can be guaranteed as it depends on benign economic conditions never stopping - no recessions.
It also requires a huge increase in government spending on basic infrastructure such as schools, hospitals and local services which - no matter what stripe they might be - all givernments are unwilling or unable to provide.
Of course you could just be suggesting that we allow immigrants in as long as they work and the throw them out when they reach retirement age but I am not sure that is a position that would be acceptable to most people (myself included).
You import both assets and liabilties. You haven't shown that the assets are less than the liabilities. Bear in mind that an asset now is better than an equivalent liability in 50 years, because you get 50 years of interest, ie if you build a bridge now you can spend 50 years driving over it creating wealth before you have to pay it back.
The other points are just silly. Of course people working create growth. Of course you don't need zero recessions - it's average growth that matters. And no, Britain is not running out of land. What's in short supply is land near where other people live, which is fixed by people living in more places.
Very few Scots will have travelled on the Edinburgh tram, as it still isn't open. It's rare to see a project that matches all three parts of Jessop's Second Rule so successfully: it will be delivered three years late, will be over-budget by £500 million and with one route, rather than the two planned.
The core problems are far from being the SNP's fault, although they and their successor governments will be left with the white elephant hanging around their necks.
I predict within a couple of decades it will be gone. The public does not seem to have much appetite for the sensible extensions (e.g. Leith) to be built, and the soon-to-be-opened run to the airport is farcical. When it comes time for millions to be spent on an upgrade, the whole lot will be abandoned.
It's a shame, and I'd love to know more details on who the project was so tragically mismanaged. I've heard some horror stories about the scheduling of road works ...
I could also mention the Alloa to Kincardine line, which was reopened in 2008. Costs rocketed from £37m to £85m and was delivered nearly three years late. After only five years, it is going to have £17m spent on it due to the line's poor condition.
The Borders Railway will show whether Scotland can actually do this sort of thing ...
Hard to say - local media not balanced, council spent a lot on PR spin, but some key elements in the trams fiasco seemingly:
1. Poor handling of the contractual side by the Council 2. Excessive specification to heavier rail standards [I don't know how true that is] 3. Even more of a mess in all the old gas, phone, water etc. lines than records showed [but what did they expect??] 4. I suspect also a lack of control of money based on assumption that the Scottish Gmt would stump up [but this assumed that the SNP would not win again ... ]
There was also a huge amount of work done digging up and filling in again and again - some for a line which will not now happen, some for duff work , and so on. Which drive the locals mad.
You are quite right. The building of the lines to the north (Leith) and south (Infirmary) is critical. And there are fundamental flaws such as the lack of a direct interface with Edinburgh Waverley (esp now the latter has an escalator to street level). That could only be remedied with an extension to the east or southeast.
By contrast the Borders Railway seems to be going reasonably well. I had noticed that the usual media critics are now complaining there is not enough of it (single rather than double line, trains not long enough) rather than it shouldn't be there. Wish they would extend it and branch it out!
Fluffy , you actually managed a few sentences there that were almost in English. You should get your keeper to give you some more nuts they seem to be helping you.
Why are you even bothering with FluffyColinHunt? His parents would be appalled that a small child like FluffyColinHunt is still being allowed to try and post poorly hidden racist comments on an adult political website.
WRT the immigration argument, one needs to distinguish between overall GDP , and GDP per head. There's plenty of evidence that mass immigration boosts the former, by boosting overall population. Little evidence that it boosts the latter.
You import both assets and liabilties. You haven't shown that the assets are less than the liabilities. Bear in mind that an asset now is better than an equivalent liability in 50 years, because you get 50 years of interest, ie if you build a bridge now you can spend 50 years driving over it creating wealth before you have to pay it back.
The other points are just silly. Of course people working create growth. Of course you don't need zero recessions - it's average growth that matters. And no, Britain is not running out of land. What's in short supply is land near where other people live, which is fixed by people living in more places.
That only works if you are honest about both the assets and liabilities. All governments since the 1950s have been dishonest about that even when it relates only to the established population. Hence the reason the western welfare model is in so much trouble. And they are being even more dishonest about the liabilities we are now importing since they fail to provide the resources (or rather they do not have the resources) for local councils to provide the necessary services to cope with large scale migration. You also have no real evidence to support your contention that immigration automatically results in growth irrespective of any other factors. You are dealing with economic theory with no real evidence that it applies in any and all circumstances.
And yes, Britain is running out of living space, or at least living space which allows for the current standard of living based upon all the intangibles including access to countryside (and properties that don't flood) as well as protection for wildlife and the maintenance of a reasonable food supply.
The trouble is that the argument you put forward is one that falls very neatly into the category of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. All you are interested in quoting is raw numbers related to GDP without looking at the actual impact of a growing population on the people themselves.
As we said yesterday there is a growing disconnect between the political classes and the rest of the population. Whilst there are many reasons for this, the idea that 'growth' at any price and whatever the consequences is a good thing is one place to start looking.
Hard to say - local media not balanced, council spent a lot on PR spin, but some key elements in the trams fiasco seemingly:
1. Poor handling of the contractual side by the Council 2. Excessive specification to heavier rail standards [I don't know how true that is] 3. Even more of a mess in all the old gas, phone, water etc. lines than records showed [but what did they expect??] 4. I suspect also a lack of control of money based on assumption that the Scottish Gmt would stump up [but this assumed that the SNP would not win again ... ]
There was also a huge amount of work done digging up and filling in again and again - some for a line which will not now happen, some for duff work , and so on. Which drive the locals mad.
You are quite right. The building of the lines to the north (Leith) and south (Infirmary) is critical. And there are fundamental flaws such as the lack of a direct interface with Edinburgh Waverley (esp now the latter has an escalator to street level). That could only be remedied with an extension to the east or southeast.
By contrast the Borders Railway seems to be going reasonably well. I had noticed that the usual media critics are now complaining there is not enough of it (single rather than double line, trains not long enough) rather than it shouldn't be there. Wish they would extend it and branch it out!
From what I have heard on the rumour mill, many roads were dug up multiple times due to a critical lack of project management and a desire to keep the public on-side - instead of closing a road for two months, they'd close it for weeks at a time and then reopen it. As well as making the place a potholed mess, it's a mad way of doing things.
I don't know about the rail standards - I haven't heard of it being built to heavy rail standards, but it might refer to over-engineering of he substructure, and heavier-wearing rail (e.g. 130-lb/yd instead of 110-lb/yd)
Let's hope the Borders Railway comes in on plan - it'll be interesting to see if it'll be as successful as other lines that have been reopened. As for extensions, I believe Harwick are campaigning for it to be extended 18 miles. If you do that, you might as well extend it all the way to Carlisle and make the line *really* useful. ;-)
Malta, Netherlands, Belgium well above UK. Germany just behind us.
No he is not talking crap. You are misquoting him. What he actually said was "England is officially Europe's most densely packed country". It is there just a few posts below your own.
And whilst city states and small islands like Malta may have a higher population density, England at 407 people per sq Km is well above the Netherlands or Belgium - or any other country in Europe.
What he actually said was "England is officially Europe's most densely packed country".
The confusion may arise from the Daily Mail thinking that England is an island with "This Worryingly Crowded Isle" as its headline.
Of course, they may be using a new definition of "isle" as "an area of civilisation separated from barbarism by the M25". While that might exclude many English people from actually living in the "new England", they probably don't matter - at least to Mail readers.
What he actually said was "England is officially Europe's most densely packed country".
The confusion may arise from the Daily Mail thinking that England is an island with "This Worryingly Crowded Isle" as its headline.
Of course, they may be using a new definition of "isle" as "an area of civilisation separated from barbarism by the M25". While that might exclude many English people from actually living in the "new England", they probably don't matter - at least to Mail readers.
Does not matter how smug you are or come up with 'witty' anecdotes the fact is this country is overcrowded. If Labour were happy with mass immigration why didn't they provide the infrastructure to cope?
Does not matter how smug you are or come up with 'witty' anecdotes the fact is this country is overcrowded. If Labour were happy with mass immigration why didn't they provide the infrastructure to cope?
No point in asking me as to why Labour, when in control of the UK Government acting as the Government of England, did or didn't do things. Maybe, if you had a Parliament of your own it might help.
Of course, that's just my opinion. I don't confuse my opinions with facts as you do.
Does not matter how smug you are or come up with 'witty' anecdotes the fact is this country is overcrowded. If Labour were happy with mass immigration why didn't they provide the infrastructure to cope?
No point in asking me as to why Labour, when in control of the UK Government acting as the Government of England, did or didn't do things. Maybe, if you had a Parliament of your own it might help.
Of course, that's just my opinion. I don't confuse my opinions with facts as you do.
You said "the fact is this country is overcrowded."
The extent to which somewhere is "crowded" is a value judgment, an opinion, not a fact. The population per hectare is a verifiable fact. Whether that is too few, too many, or just the right number is an opinion.
To assume that your value judgement is the standard to which everyone else should aspire would be rather a good example of "smugness."
You said "the fact is this country is overcrowded."
The extent to which somewhere is "crowded" is a value judgment, an opinion, not a fact. The population per hectare is a verifiable fact. Whether that is too few, too many, or just the right number is an opinion.
To assume that your value judgement is the standard to which everyone else should aspire would be rather a good example of "smugness."
Point taken and as I am most definitely not smug I would hate to appear so.
However I should point out that there is a housing shortage, a shortage of primary school places looming and according to all reports a crisis in the NHS.
These and other examples would suggest either overcrowding or lack of infrastructure or both. I am not sure how further immigration would help, please explain.
The above are only my personal opinions and are in no way meant to represent the facts.
Point taken and as I am most definitely not smug I would hate to appear so.
However I should point out that there is a housing shortage, a shortage of primary school places looming and according to all reports a crisis in the NHS.
These and other examples would suggest either overcrowding or lack of infrastructure or both. I am not sure how further immigration would help, please explain.
The above are only my personal opinions and are in no way meant to represent the facts.
I know not your "the NHS". There are four National Health Services in the UK (though that's not the official name in Northern Ireland). I presume, therefore, that you are referring to the English version. I have no expertise in that service, so is the looming crisis across the whole of England, or only in some geographic areas?
Similarly for schools - is there a shortage of places in Berwick and Carlisle, for example?
We are all aware that the housing shortage in London is particularly severe - hence the need for Labour (private sector) and Tories (public sector) to introduce the "Bedroom Tax", to try to ensure that ever more people can be packed into the available accommodation. (The explanatory phrase is simply my opinion, of course).
I don't advocate further immigration into the South-East of England. That's a matter for those that live there - like most MPs it would seem.
I do advocate it for Scotland, where the evidence seems to show that it has had a beneficial effect.
From what I have heard on the rumour mill, many roads were dug up multiple times due to a critical lack of project management and a desire to keep the public on-side - instead of closing a road for two months, they'd close it for weeks at a time and then reopen it. As well as making the place a potholed mess, it's a mad way of doing things.
I don't know about the rail standards - I haven't heard of it being built to heavy rail standards, but it might refer to over-engineering of he substructure, and heavier-wearing rail (e.g. 130-lb/yd instead of 110-lb/yd)
Let's hope the Borders Railway comes in on plan - it'll be interesting to see if it'll be as successful as other lines that have been reopened. As for extensions, I believe Harwick are campaigning for it to be extended 18 miles. If you do that, you might as well extend it all the way to Carlisle and make the line *really* useful. ;-)
Thanks. What you say re programme management sounds very like my impressions, and you may be right about the light/heavy issue - there was definitely something of the sort reported or at least alleged. As for the Borders, I am not sure how much trust to put in the predictions reported in the Herald - I recall that the Edinburgh-Bathgate railway reopening from 1986 onwards was very much more successful than the bean counters would allow in their predctions. Now it has been extended through to Glasgow (well, Airdrie which is the same thing).
Comments
That said, what the UK has ended up with arguably gets the worst of both worlds.
Second; assuming the racism in the proposal you'd need to define Africa and Asia. As Vince C never tires of pointing out quotas create their own problems.
Third, you might keep out the likes of Kevin P............
At the moment the policies for these areas are not idealised because it is recognised that the rest of the UK would struggle to cope and a balance is found with some adverse consequences all round.
If Scotland becomes independent then the London/south east will be even more dominant and their determination of economic policy will be even greater. Interest rates will almost certainly increase more quickly and monetary policy will be tighter to restrain inflationary pressures. The currency will probably rise too.
All of these will be imposed on Scotland with potentially quite serious adverse effects which will be completely ignored by the BoE.
The best political speeches use the power of understatement:
pic.twitter.com/OvLs6oMziw
Japan, on the other hand, is a sinking country ! Britain will grow better than Europe because it has allowed until now immigrants with enterprise to come in and enrich the economy.
I find it strange when the Tory supporters here hail the highest level of employment ever. Yes, but they are mostly immigrants !
Immigration has always taken place ever since the dawn of civilisation ! UK is not the only place immigrants come in , despite what right wing Tories and Kippers would like us to believe.
Those opposing immigration can stand like King Canute at Dover and order the tide not to come in. Humans will always move as they always have.
To build Crossrail London has to take on another tax (both business and residents): Why? Because any [UK} state-expenditure has to have a kick-back elsewhere in the "Greater" UK. For Crossrail that should have been was Manchester; Cronie and Gormless decided otherwise....
But; the high-and-mighty "Barnett" bespoke that Scotland needed the money (being poor-and-meek). Thus Londoners have to fund the catastrophic Edinborough tram system. [Funded; but dysfunctional....]
I have traveled on the Manckies' tram system: I doubt few Scots have been on Edinboroughs! As with the UK "Super-computers" - funded by English tax-payers (despite UMIST being a better home for limited funds) - the era of Scots' politicians' decadence will soon be over. Scotland is a drain....
Left wingers like to exaggerate the argument of those who want a limit on immigration because it suits their ideology and gives them a chance to smear their opponent.
But there is a huge difference between open borders and controlled immigration by visa.
I would say the open borders policy is almost as mad as zero immigration.
But why do Europhiles and left wingers in general, discriminate between European workers and those from Asia and Africa? Why not have controlled immigration from all over the globe?
It also ignores the fact that the US has not followed the economically suicidal welfare systems so beloved by European countries and the Left which is fundamentally incompatible with large scale migration.
As someone 'of the Left' you still have to answer the basic question of what do you want. Ever increasing immigration or the Welfare state? You cannot have both.
Not sure about Churchill although I have read a lot of his writings---long ago.
The core problems are far from being the SNP's fault, although they and their successor governments will be left with the white elephant hanging around their necks.
I predict within a couple of decades it will be gone. The public does not seem to have much appetite for the sensible extensions (e.g. Leith) to be built, and the soon-to-be-opened run to the airport is farcical. When it comes time for millions to be spent on an upgrade, the whole lot will be abandoned.
It's a shame, and I'd love to know more details on who the project was so tragically mismanaged. I've heard some horror stories about the scheduling of road works ...
I could also mention the Alloa to Kincardine line, which was reopened in 2008. Costs rocketed from £37m to £85m and was delivered nearly three years late. After only five years, it is going to have £17m spent on it due to the line's poor condition.
The Borders Railway will show whether Scotland can actually do this sort of thing ...
The problem with that is firstly that there is an absolute limit to how many people can be accommodated in a developed high population density country like the UK (which is why analogies with the US or Australia are so wrong) and secondly that you are relying upon an ever expanding economy to provide those people with employment as so ensure they do not end up on benefits.
Even with the obvious greater willingness of immigrants to work compared to some of the established population, that is not something that can be guaranteed as it depends on benign economic conditions never stopping - no recessions.
It also requires a huge increase in government spending on basic infrastructure such as schools, hospitals and local services which - no matter what stripe they might be - all givernments are unwilling or unable to provide.
Of course you could just be suggesting that we allow immigrants in as long as they work and the throw them out when they reach retirement age but I am not sure that is a position that would be acceptable to most people (myself included).
This worryingly crowded isle: England is officially Europe's most densely packed country
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2530125/This-worryingly-crowded-isle-England-officially-Europes-densely-packed-country.html
And by the way mate,it's not just tory/ukip supporters worried about mass immigration,I'm from a former labour voting family who live in the area's where most of the poor unskilled immigration as come and will be coming from Eastern Europe.
SouthamObserver, as usual, has many valuable comments to make.
Realpolitik will decide what happens if we, Catalonia, or any other part of a current EU member state votes for independence.
That is, the realpolitik of dealing with an actual situation, as opposed to the political posturing that takes place in response to the possibility of such a situation occurring.
We know that the Tories and Rajoy's Partido Popular have an agreement to present a common front against their states being diminished by parts of them leaving, and their media supporters use arguments from one country in the very dissimilar circumstances of the other.
The article in the Commentator that TSE linked to last night falls into that category, as the Wee Ginger Dug (a Scots linguist and journalist) explains -
http://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2013/12/28/forest-fire-in-narnia-a-major-blow-to-scottish-independence/
The other points are just silly. Of course people working create growth. Of course you don't need zero recessions - it's average growth that matters. And no, Britain is not running out of land. What's in short supply is land near where other people live, which is fixed by people living in more places.
The core problems are far from being the SNP's fault, although they and their successor governments will be left with the white elephant hanging around their necks.
I predict within a couple of decades it will be gone. The public does not seem to have much appetite for the sensible extensions (e.g. Leith) to be built, and the soon-to-be-opened run to the airport is farcical. When it comes time for millions to be spent on an upgrade, the whole lot will be abandoned.
It's a shame, and I'd love to know more details on who the project was so tragically mismanaged. I've heard some horror stories about the scheduling of road works ...
I could also mention the Alloa to Kincardine line, which was reopened in 2008. Costs rocketed from £37m to £85m and was delivered nearly three years late. After only five years, it is going to have £17m spent on it due to the line's poor condition.
The Borders Railway will show whether Scotland can actually do this sort of thing ...
Hard to say - local media not balanced, council spent a lot on PR spin, but some key elements in the trams fiasco seemingly:
1. Poor handling of the contractual side by the Council
2. Excessive specification to heavier rail standards [I don't know how true that is]
3. Even more of a mess in all the old gas, phone, water etc. lines than records showed [but what did they expect??]
4. I suspect also a lack of control of money based on assumption that the Scottish Gmt would stump up [but this assumed that the SNP would not win again ... ]
There was also a huge amount of work done digging up and filling in again and again - some for a line which will not now happen, some for duff work , and so on. Which drive the locals mad.
You are quite right. The building of the lines to the north (Leith) and south (Infirmary) is critical. And there are fundamental flaws such as the lack of a direct interface with Edinburgh Waverley (esp now the latter has an escalator to street level). That could only be remedied with an extension to the east or southeast.
By contrast the Borders Railway seems to be going reasonably well. I had noticed that the usual media critics are now complaining there is not enough of it (single rather than double line, trains not long enough) rather than it shouldn't be there. Wish they would extend it and branch it out!
Why are you even bothering with FluffyColinHunt? His parents would be appalled that a small child like FluffyColinHunt is still being allowed to try and post poorly hidden racist comments on an adult political website.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XLl6Hip_Io
@Tykejohnno. "UK has the highest density of population in Europe" [ or, in so many words ]
As usual you are talking crap ! Just because you repeat it does not make it correct.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934666.html
Malta, Netherlands, Belgium well above UK. Germany just behind us.
And yes, Britain is running out of living space, or at least living space which allows for the current standard of living based upon all the intangibles including access to countryside (and properties that don't flood) as well as protection for wildlife and the maintenance of a reasonable food supply.
The trouble is that the argument you put forward is one that falls very neatly into the category of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. All you are interested in quoting is raw numbers related to GDP without looking at the actual impact of a growing population on the people themselves.
As we said yesterday there is a growing disconnect between the political classes and the rest of the population. Whilst there are many reasons for this, the idea that 'growth' at any price and whatever the consequences is a good thing is one place to start looking.
I don't know about the rail standards - I haven't heard of it being built to heavy rail standards, but it might refer to over-engineering of he substructure, and heavier-wearing rail (e.g. 130-lb/yd instead of 110-lb/yd)
Let's hope the Borders Railway comes in on plan - it'll be interesting to see if it'll be as successful as other lines that have been reopened. As for extensions, I believe Harwick are campaigning for it to be extended 18 miles. If you do that, you might as well extend it all the way to Carlisle and make the line *really* useful. ;-)
But the omens are not good, at least according to the Herald.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/transport/warning-350m-rail-link-not-economically-viable.20368527
On the other hand, the IEA are against it, which means it must be a good thing ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-25035749
And whilst city states and small islands like Malta may have a higher population density, England at 407 people per sq Km is well above the Netherlands or Belgium - or any other country in Europe.
Of course, they may be using a new definition of "isle" as "an area of civilisation separated from barbarism by the M25". While that might exclude many English people from actually living in the "new England", they probably don't matter - at least to Mail readers.
Of course, that's just my opinion. I don't confuse my opinions with facts as you do.
The extent to which somewhere is "crowded" is a value judgment, an opinion, not a fact. The population per hectare is a verifiable fact. Whether that is too few, too many, or just the right number is an opinion.
To assume that your value judgement is the standard to which everyone else should aspire would be rather a good example of "smugness."
However I should point out that there is a housing shortage, a shortage of primary school places looming and according to all reports a crisis in the NHS.
These and other examples would suggest either overcrowding or lack of infrastructure or both. I am not sure how further immigration would help, please explain.
The above are only my personal opinions and are in no way meant to represent the facts.
Similarly for schools - is there a shortage of places in Berwick and Carlisle, for example?
We are all aware that the housing shortage in London is particularly severe - hence the need for Labour (private sector) and Tories (public sector) to introduce the "Bedroom Tax", to try to ensure that ever more people can be packed into the available accommodation. (The explanatory phrase is simply my opinion, of course).
I don't advocate further immigration into the South-East of England. That's a matter for those that live there - like most MPs it would seem.
I do advocate it for Scotland, where the evidence seems to show that it has had a beneficial effect.