Welsh Labour will surely receive a poll boost off the back of the vaccine rollout, just as the Tories have in England. Both Governments have done a great job of both, you must credit both if you are going to credit one. For once something I think we can agree on, all Governments in the UK have done brilliantly on the vaccine rollout.
I think it’s widely recognised on PB that Mark Drakeford is a deity, a hero of Wales, and an international playboy.
Regarding the gig economy. Two problems in attacking its obvious issues: 1. People like the services provided by the gig economy. An army of barely employed people scuttling around in their diesel cars delivering everything from Amazon orders to McDonalds is utterly stupid and unsustainable - until you are the person clicking "order". 2. A lot of gig economy workers enjoy the flexibility. The problem with "lets ban zero hours contracts" is that whilst you successfully abolish the abuse that bad employers do, you also abolish the flexibility that many employees want
This is the point where too many Labour activists then start calling people stupid or better still class traitors...
If I didn’t want to out my real identity I might post a link to one of the many many articles I’ve written on this.
Agreeing or disagreeing...?
Just from an environmental perspective the home delivery side of the gig economy is utterly unsustainable. But once the genie has left the bottle its hard to tell people they need to go back to actually shopping in person, or having to collect from a central point.
Labour will (rightly) go on fairness and protecting the workforce. But as with the attacks on Uber an awful lot of people will say "hang on, I use that. And Labour want to ban it."
BiB - is that right? Doesn't it mean people using their own cars less?
I think you have a point about users of things like Uber getting upset if prices rise appreciably due to the law being applied fairly. It's a problem for all politicians.
As the CEO of Sainsbury's put it at a conference a few years back - people want a shop at the bottom of their garden that sells everything they need. People used to do bigger shops - so 1 journey to buy a whole stack of stuff. Now, you can get delivery of cans of beans straight to the door. We used to have the postie, backed up by a van for larger items. Then a loads of commercial competitor vans. Now a load of people driving their own cars to back up the vans. A LOT of traffic, a lot of emissions.
I'm a bit sceptical about that, to be honest. That said, I wonder if a rise in fuel duty might be on the agenda for the budget. Fuel is cheaper now than it was 10 years ago (that was a big thing in the cost of living crisis - the collapse in oil prices in Autumn 2014 was a godsend for the Tories). Now might be a good time to put it up a bit.
In the long-term, electric cars is going to be a huge problem for politicians. If they don't fall in price to effectively oust ICE cars, there will come a time when only the reasonably well-off can afford a car. I wouldn't want that to happen on my watch.
Electric cars will fall in price and oust ICE cars, the total cost of ownership of new luxury cars is practically there already. The 'S' shaped adoption curve will start trending up in the next few years and in ten years time it will be eccentric if not impossible to buy a fossil fuel car.
However, I am still sceptical. Governments didn't need to legislate to ban photographic film. Digital cameras simply replaced it by being better in almost every respect.
I'm not sure how much we can read into the luxury car market. I would like to know how many households own only electric vehicles?
Just how disruptive are EVs? What is revolutionary about them? Don't get me wrong, if the car companies replicate what we have now with EVs, then fine. But we are a long way from that being the case.
At some point - probably in the mid to late 2020s - the total cost of ownership of electric cars will become cheaper than petrol powered ones.
Why? Because the cost of making batteries is falling faster than the cost of making ICEs. The fuel (electrons) for electric cars is also cheaper, and the price of differential with petrol is also likely to grow over time. Maintenance too is simpler (and cheaper) for electric. And you get more usable space in the vehicle too, as well as better perfomance.
At this point the question becomes, really, for what reason other than range would anyone choose to buy a petrol powered car over an electric one?
(And there's a price for everything: how many long distance trips do you make a year? If it's two, then the total downside of an electric car is a couple of 20 minute longer charging stops. And against that, charging infrastrcture will be everywhere. Your car will always be "topped up", and therefore you will save on those regular time consuming stops at petrol stations.)
I guess that last point is the key one. We need huge capacity for charging for such journeys. It’s no good if you have to queue up for an hour each time.
If you can get 100 miles in 7 minutes drivers will be moving on pretty quickly. "While the Tesla Model 3 has no official US towing capacity, it does have a rated towing capacity in the UK of up to 1,000 kg (2,200 is lbs)."
If it's only threats of legal action, don't worry, they won't follow it up. I've had lots of those threatening letters, they never follow them up. They just want to intimidate people into buying a license even if they don't need one.
Indeed. I don't watch TV so I've been getting letters full of seemingly horrible threats from TV Licensing for, I think, about 7 years now. They're carefully crafted to appear like a notification of serious legal trouble, with phrases like 'Enforcement action approved' and 'You may take this letter into court with you'.
It's all complete hogwash, but if you're elderly, a teenager, or a vulnerable person, the first few letters may well be terrifying. Which is the intended, and utterly immoral, result.
I am elderly now but fortunately I went through all this as a young adult first. It was only when my parents came to live with me that I had to get a TV licence. After they had both died, I got rid of the TV and licence, which was of course free once they reached 75.
So the threats & intimidation weren't a new thing to me when it started up again.
Surprising that hospital R in Scotland appears to be crossing the dreaded 1.0 line at the same time as cases rather than with the usual lag.
I think cases (and possibly hospitalisation) have been hugely distorted by a prison outbreak in East Ayrshire that I calculated added 6% to the weekly case total for a couple of weeks and also, possibly, my fave theory - delayed testing due to the snow at the beginning of the month.
Same story was in the Sunday Times today. Their source described it as a Fuhrer Bunker project; batshit but unkillable.
Even Mrs T took a couple of terms to get that divorced from reality.
This story is absurd. Why on earth should the roundabout be below the IoM when it could be 500ft above it and boost their tourism industry? Penny pinching nonsense.
Presumably there'd be a roundabout exit at the IoM? So those exiting to the IoM come off the roundabout there while others continue their journey?
It's a bigger version of what they have done in the Faroes. Join all the Islands with tunnels.
Indeed. Countries all around the world are doing this. The technology exists.
The fact people are so reflexively considering it to be absurd is ridiculous. This is precisely the sort of long term infrastructure investment that should be considered, so long as the Manx are ok with it.
A direct route from Liverpool to Belfast looks like a bloody good idea as far as I'm concerned.
I think it's ridiculous because I don't believe, even post Covid profligacy, that anyone will be found to pay for such a thing, or that it would be completed this century given how we do such projects.
Why not?
Why can the Faroes do it but we are incapable of doing it? The technology is there, its just a question of willpower.
Lack of willpower is part of it - it would take so long that whoever started it would be gone, and someone else would then want to stop it.
For another, I don't know if the projects would be of similar scale, but I am pretty confident that a UK project would be massively delayed and massively overbudget, and given we cannot even figure out how to get enough houses built ever year I cannot say I'd be confident.
Absolutely it will take a while but if the tunnelling is well underway by the time he moves on then the successor finishing it is rather simpler.
The idea that we can send rovers to Mars but we're incapable of building a tunnel between Liverpool, Isle of Man and Belfast is absurd.
Perhaps its worth getting a certain manic South African billionaire involved in the project?
How worthwhile is such a tunnel, is there a need for it? Also, will there be a customs post halfway along ;-)
It might have political and social benefits.
There's an argument to say that if it keeps the UK together the "value" of that is such that it's worth splurging on maintaining and building one on the basis that the geopolitical and economic influence we'd lose globally (that's all of us, across the UK) with the disintegration of the Union is such that it's worth it.
However, you'd really have to convince me that it was the tunnel that made the decisive difference to NI and its place in the UK. At present, I think you can say it's only a peripheral activity at best.
Regarding the gig economy. Two problems in attacking its obvious issues: 1. People like the services provided by the gig economy. An army of barely employed people scuttling around in their diesel cars delivering everything from Amazon orders to McDonalds is utterly stupid and unsustainable - until you are the person clicking "order". 2. A lot of gig economy workers enjoy the flexibility. The problem with "lets ban zero hours contracts" is that whilst you successfully abolish the abuse that bad employers do, you also abolish the flexibility that many employees want
This is the point where too many Labour activists then start calling people stupid or better still class traitors...
If I didn’t want to out my real identity I might post a link to one of the many many articles I’ve written on this.
Agreeing or disagreeing...?
Just from an environmental perspective the home delivery side of the gig economy is utterly unsustainable. But once the genie has left the bottle its hard to tell people they need to go back to actually shopping in person, or having to collect from a central point.
Labour will (rightly) go on fairness and protecting the workforce. But as with the attacks on Uber an awful lot of people will say "hang on, I use that. And Labour want to ban it."
BiB - is that right? Doesn't it mean people using their own cars less?
I think you have a point about users of things like Uber getting upset if prices rise appreciably due to the law being applied fairly. It's a problem for all politicians.
As the CEO of Sainsbury's put it at a conference a few years back - people want a shop at the bottom of their garden that sells everything they need. People used to do bigger shops - so 1 journey to buy a whole stack of stuff. Now, you can get delivery of cans of beans straight to the door. We used to have the postie, backed up by a van for larger items. Then a loads of commercial competitor vans. Now a load of people driving their own cars to back up the vans. A LOT of traffic, a lot of emissions.
I'm a bit sceptical about that, to be honest. That said, I wonder if a rise in fuel duty might be on the agenda for the budget. Fuel is cheaper now than it was 10 years ago (that was a big thing in the cost of living crisis - the collapse in oil prices in Autumn 2014 was a godsend for the Tories). Now might be a good time to put it up a bit.
In the long-term, electric cars is going to be a huge problem for politicians. If they don't fall in price to effectively oust ICE cars, there will come a time when only the reasonably well-off can afford a car. I wouldn't want that to happen on my watch.
Electric cars will fall in price and oust ICE cars, the total cost of ownership of new luxury cars is practically there already. The 'S' shaped adoption curve will start trending up in the next few years and in ten years time it will be eccentric if not impossible to buy a fossil fuel car.
However, I am still sceptical. Governments didn't need to legislate to ban photographic film. Digital cameras simply replaced it by being better in almost every respect.
I'm not sure how much we can read into the luxury car market. I would like to know how many households own only electric vehicles?
Just how disruptive are EVs? What is revolutionary about them? Don't get me wrong, if the car companies replicate what we have now with EVs, then fine. But we are a long way from that being the case.
At some point - probably in the mid to late 2020s - the total cost of ownership of electric cars will become cheaper than petrol powered ones.
Why? Because the cost of making batteries is falling faster than the cost of making ICEs. The fuel (electrons) for electric cars is also cheaper, and the price of differential with petrol is also likely to grow over time. Maintenance too is simpler (and cheaper) for electric. And you get more usable space in the vehicle too, as well as better perfomance.
At this point the question becomes, really, for what reason other than range would anyone choose to buy a petrol powered car over an electric one?
(And there's a price for everything: how many long distance trips do you make a year? If it's two, then the total downside of an electric car is a couple of 20 minute longer charging stops. And against that, charging infrastrcture will be everywhere. Your car will always be "topped up", and therefore you will save on those regular time consuming stops at petrol stations.)
I guess that last point is the key one. We need huge capacity for charging for such journeys. It’s no good if you have to queue up for an hour each time.
Regarding the gig economy. Two problems in attacking its obvious issues: 1. People like the services provided by the gig economy. An army of barely employed people scuttling around in their diesel cars delivering everything from Amazon orders to McDonalds is utterly stupid and unsustainable - until you are the person clicking "order". 2. A lot of gig economy workers enjoy the flexibility. The problem with "lets ban zero hours contracts" is that whilst you successfully abolish the abuse that bad employers do, you also abolish the flexibility that many employees want
This is the point where too many Labour activists then start calling people stupid or better still class traitors...
If I didn’t want to out my real identity I might post a link to one of the many many articles I’ve written on this.
Agreeing or disagreeing...?
Just from an environmental perspective the home delivery side of the gig economy is utterly unsustainable. But once the genie has left the bottle its hard to tell people they need to go back to actually shopping in person, or having to collect from a central point.
Labour will (rightly) go on fairness and protecting the workforce. But as with the attacks on Uber an awful lot of people will say "hang on, I use that. And Labour want to ban it."
BiB - is that right? Doesn't it mean people using their own cars less?
I think you have a point about users of things like Uber getting upset if prices rise appreciably due to the law being applied fairly. It's a problem for all politicians.
As the CEO of Sainsbury's put it at a conference a few years back - people want a shop at the bottom of their garden that sells everything they need. People used to do bigger shops - so 1 journey to buy a whole stack of stuff. Now, you can get delivery of cans of beans straight to the door. We used to have the postie, backed up by a van for larger items. Then a loads of commercial competitor vans. Now a load of people driving their own cars to back up the vans. A LOT of traffic, a lot of emissions.
I'm a bit sceptical about that, to be honest. That said, I wonder if a rise in fuel duty might be on the agenda for the budget. Fuel is cheaper now than it was 10 years ago (that was a big thing in the cost of living crisis - the collapse in oil prices in Autumn 2014 was a godsend for the Tories). Now might be a good time to put it up a bit.
In the long-term, electric cars is going to be a huge problem for politicians. If they don't fall in price to effectively oust ICE cars, there will come a time when only the reasonably well-off can afford a car. I wouldn't want that to happen on my watch.
Electric cars will fall in price and oust ICE cars, the total cost of ownership of new luxury cars is practically there already. The 'S' shaped adoption curve will start trending up in the next few years and in ten years time it will be eccentric if not impossible to buy a fossil fuel car.
However, I am still sceptical. Governments didn't need to legislate to ban photographic film. Digital cameras simply replaced it by being better in almost every respect.
I'm not sure how much we can read into the luxury car market. I would like to know how many households own only electric vehicles?
Just how disruptive are EVs? What is revolutionary about them? Don't get me wrong, if the car companies replicate what we have now with EVs, then fine. But we are a long way from that being the case.
At some point - probably in the mid to late 2020s - the total cost of ownership of electric cars will become cheaper than petrol powered ones.
Why? Because the cost of making batteries is falling faster than the cost of making ICEs. The fuel (electrons) for electric cars is also cheaper, and the price of differential with petrol is also likely to grow over time. Maintenance too is simpler (and cheaper) for electric. And you get more usable space in the vehicle too, as well as better perfomance.
At this point the question becomes, really, for what reason other than range would anyone choose to buy a petrol powered car over an electric one?
(And there's a price for everything: how many long distance trips do you make a year? If it's two, then the total downside of an electric car is a couple of 20 minute longer charging stops. And against that, charging infrastrcture will be everywhere. Your car will always be "topped up", and therefore you will save on those regular time consuming stops at petrol stations.)
I guess that last point is the key one. We need huge capacity for charging for such journeys. It’s no good if you have to queue up for an hour each time.
Same story was in the Sunday Times today. Their source described it as a Fuhrer Bunker project; batshit but unkillable.
Even Mrs T took a couple of terms to get that divorced from reality.
This story is absurd. Why on earth should the roundabout be below the IoM when it could be 500ft above it and boost their tourism industry? Penny pinching nonsense.
Presumably there'd be a roundabout exit at the IoM? So those exiting to the IoM come off the roundabout there while others continue their journey?
It's a bigger version of what they have done in the Faroes. Join all the Islands with tunnels.
Indeed. Countries all around the world are doing this. The technology exists.
The fact people are so reflexively considering it to be absurd is ridiculous. This is precisely the sort of long term infrastructure investment that should be considered, so long as the Manx are ok with it.
A direct route from Liverpool to Belfast looks like a bloody good idea as far as I'm concerned.
I think it's ridiculous because I don't believe, even post Covid profligacy, that anyone will be found to pay for such a thing, or that it would be completed this century given how we do such projects.
Why not?
Why can the Faroes do it but we are incapable of doing it? The technology is there, its just a question of willpower.
FFS. Keep Johnson away from bridges and tunnels!
Why?
He's got the vision to actually get stuff done. Its others who are adamant it can't but with him as top dog maybe he can actually get it going?
Its possible, just need the willpower to do it.
Evidence item one, a £63m and counting invisibleGarden Bridge across the Thames! I rest my case M'Lud.
If there is a GB-NI tunnel, by the way, I doubt it'd be from Stranraer to Larne.
Stranraer is bloody remote from the WCML and Carlisle. You'd have to spend almost as much again to reopen (and upgrade) the Portpatrick and Wigtownshire Joint Railway and Castle Douglas and Dumfries Railway to connect into in to the main national network, and that's a good 80 miles of high-speed railway (another £10-15bn) on top.
I still think they should do the full feasibility study, for shits & giggles, but honestly I'd rather the money was spent on the UK Government ameliorating the GB-NI trade border with more direct investment in the province, and subsidised low-carbon ferries and flights, and standard Beeching reopenings and new road infrastructure in GB proper too.
I must admit that it had passed me by that Wycombe was trending marginal. It wouldn't surprise me if Steve Baker stands down, to be honest.
As others have said though this analysis isn't complete without including the Labour seats that will flip Tory.
There will definitely be some, and the country could continue to pivot around an inverted axis.
Given the Tories had a 12% lead in 2019 and no poll has the Tories with a bigger lead than that and most polls have the Tories with a significantly smaller leader it is highly unlikely any further Labour seats will flip Tory
There are many Labour seats that have been trending Tory for quite a time and will continue to do so. Neither Ed Miliband not Yvette Cooper are safe, and the decline of the Brexit party helps them further.
Remember: even if Labour knocked it out the park you'd still expect 3-7 seats to flip Labour to Tory, and I expect more than that because they won't.
If the national swing is all one way the seats tend to follow. In 1997 for example Labour lost not a single seat to the Tories, and in 2010 the Tories lost not a single seat to Labour. In 2019 only 1 Tory seat went Labour, Putney.
Most likely if Labour does lose any seats it will be because they made net gains but still lost the election. That was the case in 1992 for example when Kinnock gained 35 seats from the Tories but lost 5 as well, 3 of them in Scotland or Wales.
We live in a world now where seats can, and do, trend in different ways and directions. That's why YouGov MRP has become so important. Old school national swing is a crude tool these days.
And don't forget all those northern seats that trended Tory significantly in GE2017, and stayed Labour, but finally flipped in GE2019.
There will be more to come.
They went Tory in 2019 to deliver Brexit and defeat Corbyn.
Brexit has been delivered and Corbyn is no more. The Tories will be doing well to hold them, let alone gain more
I think that's nonsense, for reasons I have explained on here in thread headers before.
There's much more to it than just Brexit and Corbyn: it's a comfort blanket to avoid far more difficult questions about identity and values.
'It's housing, stupid.' 🏠🏠🏠
The North is not bound to be Labour by some divine rule and has been swinging Tory for a decade now.
It's not rocket science why: house prices are much lower, housing construction much higher, so more and more people are climbing onto the housing ladder.
People who own their own home are far more likely to vote Tory. High house prices don't secure Tory votes - high construction levels resulting in higher home ownership does.
If you want more Tory votes then build, build, build houses that people can buy.
Though if you build more homes on the greenbelt and in fields you also lose lots of Tory council seats in the Home Counties to the LDs, the Greens and Independents, even if you might add a few more Tory voters who buy their own home in future general elections
Any actual evidence for that? Rather than theory.
And I care far more about MPs than Councillors.
People buying their own home are far more affected than the curtain twitching NIMBYs who still own their own home either way.
Yes, the 2019 local elections where the Tories lost 1,330 seats, the LDs gained 704 councillors, the Greens gained 237 and Independents and Residents' groups gained 755.
Guildford and South Oxfordshire for example were both lost by the Tories over planning and the Local Plan.
Epping Forest is a safe Tory seat nationally but has a lot of marginal Tory seats at council level. Yes we need more homes under the Local Plan but we will have to deal with the opposition we will face particularly in south Epping and Loughton where they are to go and to the measures to mitigate pollution around the Forest too that comes with the new development and infrastructure from the LDs, the Greens and Residents' Association
Alternatively it is the lack of completed new homes that is causing a swing away from the Tories. In 2011 Guildford had much more owner occupier than the country as a whole which is why it was more Tory.
Not building homes kills the Tories more than building them does. You're blind and myopic if you can't see that. The parts of the country relatively swinging away from the Tories are those that are developing housing shortages.
As I posted above voters are all for new affordable homes and getting more people on the property land until that means building on the greenbelt.
Voters in towns, key swing areas, back more affordable housing by 51% to 35% but they oppose building more housing on Green belt land by 52% to 33%, though they do back converting empty shops to accomodation by 46% to 32%
I don't disagree we need to get more people owning their own home and on the property ladder, particularly under 40s but new developments in the greenbelt and fields must be minimised otherwise voters will swing away from the Tories, especially at local level
That's a classic case of "ask a silly question, get a silly answer".
Most opinion polls like this are ridiculous garbage, though you treat them as the gospel truth. They don't matter.
What matters far more than anything else is not some silly opinion poll it is a very simple question: does the voter own their own home or not?
If the voter owns their own home they're most likely to vote Tory.
If the voter does not, they're most likely to vote someone else.
Every other opinion poll is irrelevant in comparison.
Or age. But lots of cross-correlation there, I guess. Most over 65s own their own home. Most under 35s do not.
Precisely. The age crossover of voting goes up and down with the home ownership crossover rate.
Struggling to disagree with you here. Both age and home ownership are right-pulling factors and on top of that they are correlated. May as well leave it there.
Back to a more interesting topic. Toi.
I will absolutely not be badgering you about this but I return to the matter of you resigning from the Tory Party in disgust at what you saw as Mrs May's rank xenophobia. It was before my time, PBwise, so I was curious if you posted about it on here at the time. I imagine you did?
Yes I did. I've been here since 2008. I wouldn't make that up or lie about it, why would I?
I joined the Tories in 2004, was disgusted by May's speech in 2016 (said so at the time) and quit when May was elected leader (before the 2017 election).
People do make things up. I've certainly been known to.
So, ok, back in 2016 you posted here on PB.com that you were disgusted by Mrs May's xenophobia and for that reason were resigning from the Tory Party.
Entirely off topic, the people in the flat above me are smokers. When they light up the smell permeates down to me.
Many months ago they switched to vaping and I found the smell of that much more obtrusive. Today, they've reverted to actual tobacco, and it took me a while to work out what that lovely odour was!
Sorry if it's worse for their health, but as a passive recipient of odours it's a good swap.
I stopped going to gigs shortly after the smoking ban. The smell of tobacco really managed to hide the smell of drunken farts and BO.
I saw Spiritualised - a spacey rock band - in the late 90s and the smell was most definitely cannabis!! The band came on and I thought there was a special effect as a fog of smoke filled the room!
Welsh Labour will surely receive a poll boost off the back of the vaccine rollout, just as the Tories have in England. Both Governments have done a great job of both, you must credit both if you are going to credit one. For once something I think we can agree on, all Governments in the UK have done brilliantly on the vaccine rollout.
Well done Tories!
I think you will find the general concensus in Wales is that Johnson completed a first class vaccine rollout, whilst Drakeford imposed an unwanted, lengthy lockdown.
There is a down side for Welsh Tories, and his name is Andrew R T Davies.
Same story was in the Sunday Times today. Their source described it as a Fuhrer Bunker project; batshit but unkillable.
Even Mrs T took a couple of terms to get that divorced from reality.
This story is absurd. Why on earth should the roundabout be below the IoM when it could be 500ft above it and boost their tourism industry? Penny pinching nonsense.
Presumably there'd be a roundabout exit at the IoM? So those exiting to the IoM come off the roundabout there while others continue their journey?
It's a bigger version of what they have done in the Faroes. Join all the Islands with tunnels.
Indeed. Countries all around the world are doing this. The technology exists.
The fact people are so reflexively considering it to be absurd is ridiculous. This is precisely the sort of long term infrastructure investment that should be considered, so long as the Manx are ok with it.
A direct route from Liverpool to Belfast looks like a bloody good idea as far as I'm concerned.
I think it's ridiculous because I don't believe, even post Covid profligacy, that anyone will be found to pay for such a thing, or that it would be completed this century given how we do such projects.
Why not?
Why can the Faroes do it but we are incapable of doing it? The technology is there, its just a question of willpower.
FFS. Keep Johnson away from bridges and tunnels!
Why?
He's got the vision to actually get stuff done. Its others who are adamant it can't but with him as top dog maybe he can actually get it going?
Its possible, just need the willpower to do it.
Evidence item one, a £63m and counting invisibleGarden Bridge across the Thames! I rest my case M'Lud.
Same story was in the Sunday Times today. Their source described it as a Fuhrer Bunker project; batshit but unkillable.
Even Mrs T took a couple of terms to get that divorced from reality.
This story is absurd. Why on earth should the roundabout be below the IoM when it could be 500ft above it and boost their tourism industry? Penny pinching nonsense.
Presumably there'd be a roundabout exit at the IoM? So those exiting to the IoM come off the roundabout there while others continue their journey?
It's a bigger version of what they have done in the Faroes. Join all the Islands with tunnels.
Indeed. Countries all around the world are doing this. The technology exists.
The fact people are so reflexively considering it to be absurd is ridiculous. This is precisely the sort of long term infrastructure investment that should be considered, so long as the Manx are ok with it.
A direct route from Liverpool to Belfast looks like a bloody good idea as far as I'm concerned.
I think it's ridiculous because I don't believe, even post Covid profligacy, that anyone will be found to pay for such a thing, or that it would be completed this century given how we do such projects.
Why not?
Why can the Faroes do it but we are incapable of doing it? The technology is there, its just a question of willpower.
FFS. Keep Johnson away from bridges and tunnels!
Why?
He's got the vision to actually get stuff done. Its others who are adamant it can't but with him as top dog maybe he can actually get it going?
Its possible, just need the willpower to do it.
Evidence item one, a £63m and counting invisibleGarden Bridge across the Thames! I rest my case M'Lud.
Evidence item two, while Johnson spent all his time farting about on that, he allowed the existing bridges to crumble resulting in the Hammersmith bridge having to be closed to traffic on safety grounds.
Same story was in the Sunday Times today. Their source described it as a Fuhrer Bunker project; batshit but unkillable.
Even Mrs T took a couple of terms to get that divorced from reality.
This story is absurd. Why on earth should the roundabout be below the IoM when it could be 500ft above it and boost their tourism industry? Penny pinching nonsense.
Presumably there'd be a roundabout exit at the IoM? So those exiting to the IoM come off the roundabout there while others continue their journey?
It's a bigger version of what they have done in the Faroes. Join all the Islands with tunnels.
Indeed. Countries all around the world are doing this. The technology exists.
The fact people are so reflexively considering it to be absurd is ridiculous. This is precisely the sort of long term infrastructure investment that should be considered, so long as the Manx are ok with it.
A direct route from Liverpool to Belfast looks like a bloody good idea as far as I'm concerned.
I think it's ridiculous because I don't believe, even post Covid profligacy, that anyone will be found to pay for such a thing, or that it would be completed this century given how we do such projects.
Why not?
Why can the Faroes do it but we are incapable of doing it? The technology is there, its just a question of willpower.
FFS. Keep Johnson away from bridges and tunnels!
Why?
He's got the vision to actually get stuff done. Its others who are adamant it can't but with him as top dog maybe he can actually get it going?
Its possible, just need the willpower to do it.
Evidence item one, a £63m and counting invisibleGarden Bridge across the Thames! I rest my case M'Lud.
Did he cancel that project?
I thought his successor cancelled it?
Have a look at Tres' post below.
You can skewer Khan for a lot of things. The invisible Garden Bridge nonetheless belongs to Johnson...oh and Joanna Lumley.
Welsh Labour will surely receive a poll boost off the back of the vaccine rollout, just as the Tories have in England. Both Governments have done a great job of both, you must credit both if you are going to credit one. For once something I think we can agree on, all Governments in the UK have done brilliantly on the vaccine rollout.
I think it’s widely recognised on PB that Mark Drakeford is a deity, a hero of Wales, and an international playboy.
The next James Bond? Pricked not prodded.
We all have our reasons for opposing Theresa May as PM.
Mine was the Wokeness; I went off her very quickly once she said the next James Bond should be a woman.
If there is a GB-NI tunnel, by the way, I doubt it'd be from Stranraer to Larne.
Stranraer is bloody remote from the WCML and Carlisle. You'd have to spend almost as much again to reopen (and upgrade) the Portpatrick and Wigtownshire Joint Railway and Castle Douglas and Dumfries Railway to connect into in to the main national network, and that's a good 80 miles of high-speed railway (another £10-15bn) on top.
I still think they should do the full feasibility study, for shits & giggles, but honestly I'd rather the money was spent on the UK Government ameliorating the GB-NI trade border with more direct investment in the province, and subsidised low-carbon ferries and flights, and standard Beeching reopenings and new road infrastructure in GB proper too.
Stanraer never made sense to me. Its middle of bloody nowhere.
But a Belfast <-> IoM <-> Liverpool route . . . would that make more sense to you? Even if its originally more expensive the value of it would be much better I imagine?
I must admit that it had passed me by that Wycombe was trending marginal. It wouldn't surprise me if Steve Baker stands down, to be honest.
As others have said though this analysis isn't complete without including the Labour seats that will flip Tory.
There will definitely be some, and the country could continue to pivot around an inverted axis.
Given the Tories had a 12% lead in 2019 and no poll has the Tories with a bigger lead than that and most polls have the Tories with a significantly smaller leader it is highly unlikely any further Labour seats will flip Tory
There are many Labour seats that have been trending Tory for quite a time and will continue to do so. Neither Ed Miliband not Yvette Cooper are safe, and the decline of the Brexit party helps them further.
Remember: even if Labour knocked it out the park you'd still expect 3-7 seats to flip Labour to Tory, and I expect more than that because they won't.
If the national swing is all one way the seats tend to follow. In 1997 for example Labour lost not a single seat to the Tories, and in 2010 the Tories lost not a single seat to Labour. In 2019 only 1 Tory seat went Labour, Putney.
Most likely if Labour does lose any seats it will be because they made net gains but still lost the election. That was the case in 1992 for example when Kinnock gained 35 seats from the Tories but lost 5 as well, 3 of them in Scotland or Wales.
We live in a world now where seats can, and do, trend in different ways and directions. That's why YouGov MRP has become so important. Old school national swing is a crude tool these days.
And don't forget all those northern seats that trended Tory significantly in GE2017, and stayed Labour, but finally flipped in GE2019.
There will be more to come.
They went Tory in 2019 to deliver Brexit and defeat Corbyn.
Brexit has been delivered and Corbyn is no more. The Tories will be doing well to hold them, let alone gain more
I think that's nonsense, for reasons I have explained on here in thread headers before.
There's much more to it than just Brexit and Corbyn: it's a comfort blanket to avoid far more difficult questions about identity and values.
'It's housing, stupid.' 🏠🏠🏠
The North is not bound to be Labour by some divine rule and has been swinging Tory for a decade now.
It's not rocket science why: house prices are much lower, housing construction much higher, so more and more people are climbing onto the housing ladder.
People who own their own home are far more likely to vote Tory. High house prices don't secure Tory votes - high construction levels resulting in higher home ownership does.
If you want more Tory votes then build, build, build houses that people can buy.
Though if you build more homes on the greenbelt and in fields you also lose lots of Tory council seats in the Home Counties to the LDs, the Greens and Independents, even if you might add a few more Tory voters who buy their own home in future general elections
Any actual evidence for that? Rather than theory.
And I care far more about MPs than Councillors.
People buying their own home are far more affected than the curtain twitching NIMBYs who still own their own home either way.
Yes, the 2019 local elections where the Tories lost 1,330 seats, the LDs gained 704 councillors, the Greens gained 237 and Independents and Residents' groups gained 755.
Guildford and South Oxfordshire for example were both lost by the Tories over planning and the Local Plan.
Epping Forest is a safe Tory seat nationally but has a lot of marginal Tory seats at council level. Yes we need more homes under the Local Plan but we will have to deal with the opposition we will face particularly in south Epping and Loughton where they are to go and to the measures to mitigate pollution around the Forest too that comes with the new development and infrastructure from the LDs, the Greens and Residents' Association
Alternatively it is the lack of completed new homes that is causing a swing away from the Tories. In 2011 Guildford had much more owner occupier than the country as a whole which is why it was more Tory.
Not building homes kills the Tories more than building them does. You're blind and myopic if you can't see that. The parts of the country relatively swinging away from the Tories are those that are developing housing shortages.
As I posted above voters are all for new affordable homes and getting more people on the property land until that means building on the greenbelt.
Voters in towns, key swing areas, back more affordable housing by 51% to 35% but they oppose building more housing on Green belt land by 52% to 33%, though they do back converting empty shops to accomodation by 46% to 32%
I don't disagree we need to get more people owning their own home and on the property ladder, particularly under 40s but new developments in the greenbelt and fields must be minimised otherwise voters will swing away from the Tories, especially at local level
That's a classic case of "ask a silly question, get a silly answer".
Most opinion polls like this are ridiculous garbage, though you treat them as the gospel truth. They don't matter.
What matters far more than anything else is not some silly opinion poll it is a very simple question: does the voter own their own home or not?
If the voter owns their own home they're most likely to vote Tory.
If the voter does not, they're most likely to vote someone else.
Every other opinion poll is irrelevant in comparison.
Or age. But lots of cross-correlation there, I guess. Most over 65s own their own home. Most under 35s do not.
Precisely. The age crossover of voting goes up and down with the home ownership crossover rate.
Struggling to disagree with you here. Both age and home ownership are right-pulling factors and on top of that they are correlated. May as well leave it there.
Back to a more interesting topic. Toi.
I will absolutely not be badgering you about this but I return to the matter of you resigning from the Tory Party in disgust at what you saw as Mrs May's rank xenophobia. It was before my time, PBwise, so I was curious if you posted about it on here at the time. I imagine you did?
Yes I did. I've been here since 2008. I wouldn't make that up or lie about it, why would I?
I joined the Tories in 2004, was disgusted by May's speech in 2016 (said so at the time) and quit when May was elected leader (before the 2017 election).
People do make things up. I've certainly been known to.
So, ok, back in 2016 you posted here on PB.com that you were disgusted by Mrs May's xenophobia and for that reason were resigning from the Tory Party.
Is this your final sworn testimony?
Close.
2015 I was disgusted by May's xenophobia.
2016 I quit the party.
I said so. It'll be on the record somewhere.
Right. Understood. I'll have a root around and report back.
I must admit that it had passed me by that Wycombe was trending marginal. It wouldn't surprise me if Steve Baker stands down, to be honest.
As others have said though this analysis isn't complete without including the Labour seats that will flip Tory.
There will definitely be some, and the country could continue to pivot around an inverted axis.
Given the Tories had a 12% lead in 2019 and no poll has the Tories with a bigger lead than that and most polls have the Tories with a significantly smaller leader it is highly unlikely any further Labour seats will flip Tory
There are many Labour seats that have been trending Tory for quite a time and will continue to do so. Neither Ed Miliband not Yvette Cooper are safe, and the decline of the Brexit party helps them further.
Remember: even if Labour knocked it out the park you'd still expect 3-7 seats to flip Labour to Tory, and I expect more than that because they won't.
If the national swing is all one way the seats tend to follow. In 1997 for example Labour lost not a single seat to the Tories, and in 2010 the Tories lost not a single seat to Labour. In 2019 only 1 Tory seat went Labour, Putney.
Most likely if Labour does lose any seats it will be because they made net gains but still lost the election. That was the case in 1992 for example when Kinnock gained 35 seats from the Tories but lost 5 as well, 3 of them in Scotland or Wales.
We live in a world now where seats can, and do, trend in different ways and directions. That's why YouGov MRP has become so important. Old school national swing is a crude tool these days.
And don't forget all those northern seats that trended Tory significantly in GE2017, and stayed Labour, but finally flipped in GE2019.
There will be more to come.
They went Tory in 2019 to deliver Brexit and defeat Corbyn.
Brexit has been delivered and Corbyn is no more. The Tories will be doing well to hold them, let alone gain more
I think that's nonsense, for reasons I have explained on here in thread headers before.
There's much more to it than just Brexit and Corbyn: it's a comfort blanket to avoid far more difficult questions about identity and values.
'It's housing, stupid.' 🏠🏠🏠
The North is not bound to be Labour by some divine rule and has been swinging Tory for a decade now.
It's not rocket science why: house prices are much lower, housing construction much higher, so more and more people are climbing onto the housing ladder.
People who own their own home are far more likely to vote Tory. High house prices don't secure Tory votes - high construction levels resulting in higher home ownership does.
If you want more Tory votes then build, build, build houses that people can buy.
Though if you build more homes on the greenbelt and in fields you also lose lots of Tory council seats in the Home Counties to the LDs, the Greens and Independents, even if you might add a few more Tory voters who buy their own home in future general elections
Any actual evidence for that? Rather than theory.
And I care far more about MPs than Councillors.
People buying their own home are far more affected than the curtain twitching NIMBYs who still own their own home either way.
Yes, the 2019 local elections where the Tories lost 1,330 seats, the LDs gained 704 councillors, the Greens gained 237 and Independents and Residents' groups gained 755.
Guildford and South Oxfordshire for example were both lost by the Tories over planning and the Local Plan.
Epping Forest is a safe Tory seat nationally but has a lot of marginal Tory seats at council level. Yes we need more homes under the Local Plan but we will have to deal with the opposition we will face particularly in south Epping and Loughton where they are to go and to the measures to mitigate pollution around the Forest too that comes with the new development and infrastructure from the LDs, the Greens and Residents' Association
Alternatively it is the lack of completed new homes that is causing a swing away from the Tories. In 2011 Guildford had much more owner occupier than the country as a whole which is why it was more Tory.
Not building homes kills the Tories more than building them does. You're blind and myopic if you can't see that. The parts of the country relatively swinging away from the Tories are those that are developing housing shortages.
As I posted above voters are all for new affordable homes and getting more people on the property land until that means building on the greenbelt.
Voters in towns, key swing areas, back more affordable housing by 51% to 35% but they oppose building more housing on Green belt land by 52% to 33%, though they do back converting empty shops to accomodation by 46% to 32%
I don't disagree we need to get more people owning their own home and on the property ladder, particularly under 40s but new developments in the greenbelt and fields must be minimised otherwise voters will swing away from the Tories, especially at local level
That's a classic case of "ask a silly question, get a silly answer".
Most opinion polls like this are ridiculous garbage, though you treat them as the gospel truth. They don't matter.
What matters far more than anything else is not some silly opinion poll it is a very simple question: does the voter own their own home or not?
If the voter owns their own home they're most likely to vote Tory.
If the voter does not, they're most likely to vote someone else.
Every other opinion poll is irrelevant in comparison.
Or age. But lots of cross-correlation there, I guess. Most over 65s own their own home. Most under 35s do not.
Precisely. The age crossover of voting goes up and down with the home ownership crossover rate.
Struggling to disagree with you here. Both age and home ownership are right-pulling factors and on top of that they are correlated. May as well leave it there.
Back to a more interesting topic. Toi.
I will absolutely not be badgering you about this but I return to the matter of you resigning from the Tory Party in disgust at what you saw as Mrs May's rank xenophobia. It was before my time, PBwise, so I was curious if you posted about it on here at the time. I imagine you did?
Yes I did. I've been here since 2008. I wouldn't make that up or lie about it, why would I?
I joined the Tories in 2004, was disgusted by May's speech in 2016 (said so at the time) and quit when May was elected leader (before the 2017 election).
People do make things up. I've certainly been known to.
So, ok, back in 2016 you posted here on PB.com that you were disgusted by Mrs May's xenophobia and for that reason were resigning from the Tory Party.
Is this your final sworn testimony?
Close.
2015 I was disgusted by May's xenophobia.
2016 I quit the party.
I said so. It'll be on the record somewhere.
Right. Understood. I'll have a root around and report back.
If there is a GB-NI tunnel, by the way, I doubt it'd be from Stranraer to Larne.
Stranraer is bloody remote from the WCML and Carlisle. You'd have to spend almost as much again to reopen (and upgrade) the Portpatrick and Wigtownshire Joint Railway and Castle Douglas and Dumfries Railway to connect into in to the main national network, and that's a good 80 miles of high-speed railway (another £10-15bn) on top.
I still think they should do the full feasibility study, for shits & giggles, but honestly I'd rather the money was spent on the UK Government ameliorating the GB-NI trade border with more direct investment in the province, and subsidised low-carbon ferries and flights, and standard Beeching reopenings and new road infrastructure in GB proper too.
Stanraer never made sense to me. Its middle of bloody nowhere.
But a Belfast <-> IoM <-> Liverpool route . . . would that make more sense to you? Even if its originally more expensive the value of it would be much better I imagine?
It'd be cool, fun, nice, amazing engineering etc. but it'd cost about £50-60bn, take possibly over a decade to build, and have limited additional traffic potential.
I must admit that it had passed me by that Wycombe was trending marginal. It wouldn't surprise me if Steve Baker stands down, to be honest.
As others have said though this analysis isn't complete without including the Labour seats that will flip Tory.
There will definitely be some, and the country could continue to pivot around an inverted axis.
Given the Tories had a 12% lead in 2019 and no poll has the Tories with a bigger lead than that and most polls have the Tories with a significantly smaller leader it is highly unlikely any further Labour seats will flip Tory
There are many Labour seats that have been trending Tory for quite a time and will continue to do so. Neither Ed Miliband not Yvette Cooper are safe, and the decline of the Brexit party helps them further.
Remember: even if Labour knocked it out the park you'd still expect 3-7 seats to flip Labour to Tory, and I expect more than that because they won't.
If the national swing is all one way the seats tend to follow. In 1997 for example Labour lost not a single seat to the Tories, and in 2010 the Tories lost not a single seat to Labour. In 2019 only 1 Tory seat went Labour, Putney.
Most likely if Labour does lose any seats it will be because they made net gains but still lost the election. That was the case in 1992 for example when Kinnock gained 35 seats from the Tories but lost 5 as well, 3 of them in Scotland or Wales.
We live in a world now where seats can, and do, trend in different ways and directions. That's why YouGov MRP has become so important. Old school national swing is a crude tool these days.
And don't forget all those northern seats that trended Tory significantly in GE2017, and stayed Labour, but finally flipped in GE2019.
There will be more to come.
They went Tory in 2019 to deliver Brexit and defeat Corbyn.
Brexit has been delivered and Corbyn is no more. The Tories will be doing well to hold them, let alone gain more
I think that's nonsense, for reasons I have explained on here in thread headers before.
There's much more to it than just Brexit and Corbyn: it's a comfort blanket to avoid far more difficult questions about identity and values.
'It's housing, stupid.' 🏠🏠🏠
The North is not bound to be Labour by some divine rule and has been swinging Tory for a decade now.
It's not rocket science why: house prices are much lower, housing construction much higher, so more and more people are climbing onto the housing ladder.
People who own their own home are far more likely to vote Tory. High house prices don't secure Tory votes - high construction levels resulting in higher home ownership does.
If you want more Tory votes then build, build, build houses that people can buy.
Though if you build more homes on the greenbelt and in fields you also lose lots of Tory council seats in the Home Counties to the LDs, the Greens and Independents, even if you might add a few more Tory voters who buy their own home in future general elections
Any actual evidence for that? Rather than theory.
And I care far more about MPs than Councillors.
People buying their own home are far more affected than the curtain twitching NIMBYs who still own their own home either way.
Yes, the 2019 local elections where the Tories lost 1,330 seats, the LDs gained 704 councillors, the Greens gained 237 and Independents and Residents' groups gained 755.
Guildford and South Oxfordshire for example were both lost by the Tories over planning and the Local Plan.
Epping Forest is a safe Tory seat nationally but has a lot of marginal Tory seats at council level. Yes we need more homes under the Local Plan but we will have to deal with the opposition we will face particularly in south Epping and Loughton where they are to go and to the measures to mitigate pollution around the Forest too that comes with the new development and infrastructure from the LDs, the Greens and Residents' Association
Alternatively it is the lack of completed new homes that is causing a swing away from the Tories. In 2011 Guildford had much more owner occupier than the country as a whole which is why it was more Tory.
Not building homes kills the Tories more than building them does. You're blind and myopic if you can't see that. The parts of the country relatively swinging away from the Tories are those that are developing housing shortages.
As I posted above voters are all for new affordable homes and getting more people on the property land until that means building on the greenbelt.
Voters in towns, key swing areas, back more affordable housing by 51% to 35% but they oppose building more housing on Green belt land by 52% to 33%, though they do back converting empty shops to accomodation by 46% to 32%
I don't disagree we need to get more people owning their own home and on the property ladder, particularly under 40s but new developments in the greenbelt and fields must be minimised otherwise voters will swing away from the Tories, especially at local level
That's a classic case of "ask a silly question, get a silly answer".
Most opinion polls like this are ridiculous garbage, though you treat them as the gospel truth. They don't matter.
What matters far more than anything else is not some silly opinion poll it is a very simple question: does the voter own their own home or not?
If the voter owns their own home they're most likely to vote Tory.
If the voter does not, they're most likely to vote someone else.
Every other opinion poll is irrelevant in comparison.
Or age. But lots of cross-correlation there, I guess. Most over 65s own their own home. Most under 35s do not.
Precisely. The age crossover of voting goes up and down with the home ownership crossover rate.
Struggling to disagree with you here. Both age and home ownership are right-pulling factors and on top of that they are correlated. May as well leave it there.
Back to a more interesting topic. Toi.
I will absolutely not be badgering you about this but I return to the matter of you resigning from the Tory Party in disgust at what you saw as Mrs May's rank xenophobia. It was before my time, PBwise, so I was curious if you posted about it on here at the time. I imagine you did?
Yes I did. I've been here since 2008. I wouldn't make that up or lie about it, why would I?
I joined the Tories in 2004, was disgusted by May's speech in 2016 (said so at the time) and quit when May was elected leader (before the 2017 election).
People do make things up. I've certainly been known to.
So, ok, back in 2016 you posted here on PB.com that you were disgusted by Mrs May's xenophobia and for that reason were resigning from the Tory Party.
Is this your final sworn testimony?
Close.
2015 I was disgusted by May's xenophobia.
2016 I quit the party.
I said so. It'll be on the record somewhere.
Right. Understood. I'll have a root around and report back.
To paraphrase Lumière, be my guest.
Have not as yet found anything. Early days though.
Blackman has subsequently apologised and settled out of court. Nevertheless, the Sturgeon cabal has managed to remove another critic form the frontline.
If there is a GB-NI tunnel, by the way, I doubt it'd be from Stranraer to Larne.
Stranraer is bloody remote from the WCML and Carlisle. You'd have to spend almost as much again to reopen (and upgrade) the Portpatrick and Wigtownshire Joint Railway and Castle Douglas and Dumfries Railway to connect into in to the main national network, and that's a good 80 miles of high-speed railway (another £10-15bn) on top.
I still think they should do the full feasibility study, for shits & giggles, but honestly I'd rather the money was spent on the UK Government ameliorating the GB-NI trade border with more direct investment in the province, and subsidised low-carbon ferries and flights, and standard Beeching reopenings and new road infrastructure in GB proper too.
Hunterston - Cumbrae - Bute - Arran - Kintyre - Antrim tunnels would both mean shorter, cheaper tunnels and improve connectivity to places poorly served by existing infrastructure.
Just throwing this out there. How do our Scottish Unionists on pb feel about BBC Scotland? Is it an independent truth teller or a lackey for the control freak SNP?
Like the rest of the Scottish media, they're thoroughly cowed by the SNP. Surgeon gets an easy ride most of the time and any serious investigative journalism is off the table.
It's no coincidence that only an English magazine was prepared to take legal action over Salmond's inquiry submission. No Scottish paper or TV channel would even consider that.
I find that an astonishing assertion given most of the media operating in Scotland are not even Scottish controlled and are often thinly disguised versions of London media.
As for the Press and Journal, etc., you may recall the surprise and discussion here a month or two back when they ran a couple of stories mildly agreeing with the Scottish Gmt and SNP on the impact of Brexit on the economy in Scotland.
I would disagree that the Scottish Government get an easy ride. However, Sturgeon doesn’t get anything like the aggressive bias that Salmond got, particularly from BBC Scotland. I assume it’s because she’s not seen as a threat to the union. The other major complaint is the sheer amateurism of BBC Scotland. Very poor value for £157.50. I hope that not much of it is wasted on BBC Scotland news.
A friend of mine is exceedingly peeved. She is a nurse and survived the whole Covid episode without getting it, having been tested relentlessly. About 6 weeks ago she was vaccinated. And now she has just tested positive. She is to get another test and so far she has no symptoms other than possibly a sore throat, but wonders whether that is just imagined. She is exceedingly annoyed.
Genuinely puzzled about what is annoying her. Is it the fact she got a positive test, or something she feels about the vaccine? If the latter, not sure it is well-placed (or even useful). Indeed, she is lucky she has had the vaccine long enough ago to provide protection against morbidity. Thankful rather than peeved would seem a more appropriate emotional response.
Indeed. What exactly is the problem here? Bizarre. Perhaps a fear factor thing? The wall to wall scare stories about COVID rarely mention that 50% of infections are asymptomatic and that vaccination is an excellent protection against becoming ill with the virus.
I think everyone is rather overreacting to my post. It isn't a problem at all and she is really quite lucky. People reading to much into it. It is just the irony. She just can't believe having been at risk for so long she finally gets it now! Sorry I posted. She is just frustrated particularly as she can't go into work.
Despite the dramatic changes wrought by Brexit, these are still the towns and their hinterlands that we've watched for so long. Perhaps a bit more evenly spread regionally than before, with more in the north (such as Don Valley) and south (such as Colchester) than before to go with staples such as Worcester in the Midlands.
Comments
"While the Tesla Model 3 has no official US towing capacity, it does have a rated towing capacity in the UK of up to 1,000 kg (2,200 is lbs)."
So the threats & intimidation weren't a new thing to me when it started up again.
There's an argument to say that if it keeps the UK together the "value" of that is such that it's worth splurging on maintaining and building one on the basis that the geopolitical and economic influence we'd lose globally (that's all of us, across the UK) with the disintegration of the Union is such that it's worth it.
However, you'd really have to convince me that it was the tunnel that made the decisive difference to NI and its place in the UK. At present, I think you can say it's only a peripheral activity at best.
Concrete plinths already poured etc.
Stranraer is bloody remote from the WCML and Carlisle. You'd have to spend almost as much again to reopen (and upgrade) the Portpatrick and Wigtownshire Joint Railway and Castle Douglas and Dumfries Railway to connect into in to the main national network, and that's a good 80 miles of high-speed railway (another £10-15bn) on top.
I still think they should do the full feasibility study, for shits & giggles, but honestly I'd rather the money was spent on the UK Government ameliorating the GB-NI trade border with more direct investment in the province, and subsidised low-carbon ferries and flights, and standard Beeching reopenings and new road infrastructure in GB proper too.
2015 I was disgusted by May's xenophobia.
2016 I quit the party.
I said so. It'll be on the record somewhere.
There is a down side for Welsh Tories, and his name is Andrew R T Davies.
I thought his successor cancelled it?
You can skewer Khan for a lot of things. The invisible Garden Bridge nonetheless belongs to Johnson...oh and Joanna Lumley.
Mine was the Wokeness; I went off her very quickly once she said the next James Bond should be a woman.
I'm only half-joking.
Thankfully, Barbara Brocolli has more sense.
https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/1363531402944405510?s=20
But a Belfast <-> IoM <-> Liverpool route . . . would that make more sense to you? Even if its originally more expensive the value of it would be much better I imagine?
she is really quite lucky. People reading to much into it. It is just the irony. She just can't believe having been at risk for so long she finally gets it now! Sorry I posted. She is just frustrated particularly as she can't go into work.