politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Jared O’Mara’s likely resignation should prompt another look a
Comments
-
If you actually read reports (and as you've said in the past, you don't as you think you know best) then you'll know the justification has never changed. The entire driving force of the project from the beginning was capacity.another_richard said:Wasn't HS2 originally supposed to cost £30bn which has now morphed into £80bn ?
I wonder if the HS2 supporters could say what price is too high for HS2 ? Or is there no price which is too high ?
And I love the changing justification - its for faster travel, its to help the North, its to increase capacity, its to increase capacity around London, its for freight.
When the reasons for doing something keep changing the alarm bells start sounding.
You're right about how crap this country is at doing major projects - perhaps we should place a time limit on them, nothing which takes longer than a world war should be allowed. Anything else leads to ever lengthening costs.
But projects can have more than one benefit (and indeed, more than one disadvantage). And you are apparently clueless about how increasing capacity also allows an increase in capacity for freight on the other lines.
You are also being rather silly when suggesting a time limit on projects. What do you count in the time limit? When does a project start? Before the public inquiry? After? When the first shovel goes in the ground? What happens if that time period is broached? The project is abandoned?
Most of all, would you have classed the motorway network in that manner?0 -
So if Cameron hadn’t been in quite such a rush to hold the referendum ...?CarlottaVance said:0 -
I don't have a problem with millenials, they are more sinned against than sinners.dixiedean said:
The millennials and boomers would do well to remember there is a generation in between them which isn't particularly enamoured of either of them.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Was at a comedy event last night where one of the comedians (millennial) eviscerated the boomers. As a gen-xer I felt like a non combatant but it was biting and very funny. There is a lot of anger out there at the postwar generation. Not all of it's fair. But most of it is.Beibheirli_C said:
Largely true I suspect. I have come to the conclusion that many of that generation (the Baby Boomers) are possibly amongst the most selfish ever born. Free healthcare, free education, excellent pension schemes, high levels of employment, good housing, etc and then they pull the ladders up behind them and demand an extra £350m a week for their healthcare and free TV licences.OldKingCole said:IIRC the generation, like mine and a bit older who actually lived through the war were/are Remainers. It's their younger brothers and sisters, brought up on the likes of Biggles and The Great Escape who are Leavers.
My sympathies are entirely with the under 40s0 -
Fag packet calculationrottenborough said:
300,000 passengers per day according to HS2 themselves.Pulpstar said:What's the projected demand for HS2 in say 100 passenger miles/year ?
What surcharge would be needed to tickets to get say a 30 year payback on construction costs ?
The plan is 48 trains per hour across the network. If the service runs say 20 hours a day then I make that ≈ 300 passengers per train average.
300,000 * 360 * 30 ~= 3 billion passengers. Say it costs £100 Bn...
We'll take the assumption increased passenger growth + running costs level out (A heroic assumption !)
So £30 a ticket (+rpi) should do it.0 -
I notice you don't give a price at which you think HS2 would no longer be worthwhile.JosiasJessop said:
If you actually read reports (and as you've said in the past, you don't as you think you know best) then you'll know the justification has never changed. The entire driving force of the project from the beginning was capacity.another_richard said:Wasn't HS2 originally supposed to cost £30bn which has now morphed into £80bn ?
I wonder if the HS2 supporters could say what price is too high for HS2 ? Or is there no price which is too high ?
And I love the changing justification - its for faster travel, its to help the North, its to increase capacity, its to increase capacity around London, its for freight.
When the reasons for doing something keep changing the alarm bells start sounding.
You're right about how crap this country is at doing major projects - perhaps we should place a time limit on them, nothing which takes longer than a world war should be allowed. Anything else leads to ever lengthening costs.
But projects can have more than one benefit (and indeed, more than one disadvantage). And you are apparently clueless about how increasing capacity also allows an increase in capacity for freight on the other lines.
You are also being rather silly when suggesting a time limit on projects. What do you count in the time limit? When does a project start? Before the public inquiry? After? When the first shovel goes in the ground? What happens if that time period is broached? The project is abandoned?
Most of all, would you have classed the motorway network in that manner?
Admit it those who said that costs would inexorably rise have been proved right.0 -
Or people now take a more positive view of immigration, now we are leaving the EU and can set our own policyNigelb said:
So if Cameron hadn’t been in quite such a rush to hold the referendum ...?CarlottaVance said:1 -
It depends on the age at which such a blow strikes , I think. I am now a few weeks beyond my 65th birthday and am aware that I have now reached what was the average UK male life expectancy when Anthony Eden became PM in Spring 1955. Were I to be diagnosed with something really nasty such as you have referred to, I would decline treatment options such as chemotherapy. Were I still 40 or 45, I might well take a different view.StuartDickson said:
Similar experience here. My year battling cancer totally transformed my life. Especially during the diagnosis stage you radically reassess absolutely everything. But funnily enough, politics was one of the few aspects of my life that remained a constant. The difference with you Nick is probably because I was only under the misapprehension that it was terminal for a few days. Still a horrific experience: staring into the abyss.NickPalmer said:
Yes, it's an inspiring and thought-provoking case. I like to think that if I'd been Broughton I'd have defied the non-whip and insisted on voting - what a way to go out, unerringly defiant to the end. But...when I actually thought I had a terminal illness (wrong diagnosis, as it turned out), I found I no longer gave a hoot about politics - no longer my problem, etc. It was rather a nasty revelation for my self-image as a noble champion of the people type.david_herdson said:
It should be remembered that the Callaghan government fell because the PM ordered a terminally ill MP, Alfred Broughton, *not* to travel to Westminster (the fear was that the journey itself from Yorkshire might kill him - Broughton died five days later). Also, when the Labour whips requested a pair for Broughton, the Tory Chief Whip accurately replied that pairing was never a convention for confidence motions but then offered to abstain himself, believing that he had offered a commitment to his opposite number. This offer to commit career suicide was then refused by Labour. Nobler days.0 -
Indeed. All these issues, including the idea that the threat of No Deal gives you credibility for a deal stem from the refusal of Leavers to face reality. At some point reality will have to intrude. Accepting reality is to accept the failure of Brexit, basically. A lot of people will be unhappy with it. That's Farage's opportunity .williamglenn said:
The success of Farage is not a function of the UK's relationship with the EU, but of the UK political class's detachment from the UK's geopolitical position.FF43 said:
Brexit never will be "delivered". There will be a state of permanent negotiation, Deal or no. Negotiation here means the EU making a demand and the UK either quickly saying Yes or getting into a debilitating argument about it. One example of the hundreds that will come up is that the EU will demand access to UK fishing on essentially current terms. This is a high priority item for several EU countries.DavidL said:The threat of Farage is grossly overstated if Brexit is delivered. No doubt there will be moans of servitude etc. Few will pay attention having never got the details. I am reminded of Palmerston's description of the Schleswig-Holstein question
"“Only three people have ever really understood the Schleswig-Holstein business—the Prince Consort, who is dead—a German professor, who has gone mad—and I, who have forgotten all about it."
So let it be with Brexit. Of course if it is not delivered that is a whole other ball game.
Plenty of scope for Farage, I think.
As long as we have mainstream politicians who adopt a pose of believing in Britain as a great force in the world despite the reality, Farage will be there to exploit the discrepancy. It's not hard to imagine how being outside the EU could create even more fertile ground for him.0 -
I find I have much more in common with them than with the preceding generation. Was it always so?OnlyLivingBoy said:
I don't have a problem with millenials, they are more sinned against than sinners.dixiedean said:
The millennials and boomers would do well to remember there is a generation in between them which isn't particularly enamoured of either of them.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Was at a comedy event last night where one of the comedians (millennial) eviscerated the boomers. As a gen-xer I felt like a non combatant but it was biting and very funny. There is a lot of anger out there at the postwar generation. Not all of it's fair. But most of it is.Beibheirli_C said:
Largely true I suspect. I have come to the conclusion that many of that generation (the Baby Boomers) are possibly amongst the most selfish ever born. Free healthcare, free education, excellent pension schemes, high levels of employment, good housing, etc and then they pull the ladders up behind them and demand an extra £350m a week for their healthcare and free TV licences.OldKingCole said:IIRC the generation, like mine and a bit older who actually lived through the war were/are Remainers. It's their younger brothers and sisters, brought up on the likes of Biggles and The Great Escape who are Leavers.
My sympathies are entirely with the under 40s0 -
That sounds ambitious.rottenborough said:
300,000 passengers per day according to HS2 themselves.Pulpstar said:What's the projected demand for HS2 in say 100 passenger miles/year ?
What surcharge would be needed to tickets to get say a 30 year payback on construction costs ?
The plan is 48 trains per hour across the network. If the service runs say 20 hours a day then I make that ≈ 300 passengers per train average.
Wouldn't that be 24 trains both arriving and leaving London ever hour of the day ?
Given there's not much demand for trains in the middle of the night ...0 -
I notice you don't respond to my points, either - namely that you're utterly clueless.another_richard said:
I notice you don't give a price at which you think HS2 would no longer be worthwhile.JosiasJessop said:
If you actually read reports (and as you've said in the past, you don't as you think you know best) then you'll know the justification has never changed. The entire driving force of the project from the beginning was capacity.another_richard said:Wasn't HS2 originally supposed to cost £30bn which has now morphed into £80bn ?
I wonder if the HS2 supporters could say what price is too high for HS2 ? Or is there no price which is too high ?
And I love the changing justification - its for faster travel, its to help the North, its to increase capacity, its to increase capacity around London, its for freight.
When the reasons for doing something keep changing the alarm bells start sounding.
You're right about how crap this country is at doing major projects - perhaps we should place a time limit on them, nothing which takes longer than a world war should be allowed. Anything else leads to ever lengthening costs.
But projects can have more than one benefit (and indeed, more than one disadvantage). And you are apparently clueless about how increasing capacity also allows an increase in capacity for freight on the other lines.
You are also being rather silly when suggesting a time limit on projects. What do you count in the time limit? When does a project start? Before the public inquiry? After? When the first shovel goes in the ground? What happens if that time period is broached? The project is abandoned?
Most of all, would you have classed the motorway network in that manner?
Admit it those who said that costs would inexorably rise have been proved right.
And they haven't been proved right: and certainly not for the right reasons. Creating random numbers - or believing those numbers when others create them - is not being right. You get your information from the anti-HS2 press, and not from actually reading documents. That makes you clueless.0 -
-
That is a very surprising graph, I cant really make sense of it. The best I can come up with is that most people see immigration as a mix of positive and negative impacts, and are responding with their view vs the perceived establishment view rather than just their view.CarlottaVance said:
In the early years on the graph people felt the negative impact was understated so when questioned said it was negative. In later years people felt the negative impact had become overstated through brexit and therefore responded saying it was positive.0 -
In which case one might have expected a significant bump in the trend, which isn’t there.JohnLilburne said:
Or people now take a more positive view of immigration, now we are leaving the EU and can set our own policyNigelb said:
So if Cameron hadn’t been in quite such a rush to hold the referendum ...?CarlottaVance said:
0 -
Add in running costs...Pulpstar said:
Fag packet calculationrottenborough said:
300,000 passengers per day according to HS2 themselves.Pulpstar said:What's the projected demand for HS2 in say 100 passenger miles/year ?
What surcharge would be needed to tickets to get say a 30 year payback on construction costs ?
The plan is 48 trains per hour across the network. If the service runs say 20 hours a day then I make that ≈ 300 passengers per train average.
300,000 * 360 * 30 ~= 3 billion passengers. Say it costs £100 Bn...
We'll take the assumption increased passenger growth + running costs level out (A heroic assumption !)
So £30 a ticket (+rpi) should do it.0 -
300k per day sounds right, 48 trains per hour sounds wrong, especially as the capacity of the trains would be way higher than 300 passengers.another_richard said:
That sounds ambitious.rottenborough said:
300,000 passengers per day according to HS2 themselves.Pulpstar said:What's the projected demand for HS2 in say 100 passenger miles/year ?
What surcharge would be needed to tickets to get say a 30 year payback on construction costs ?
The plan is 48 trains per hour across the network. If the service runs say 20 hours a day then I make that ≈ 300 passengers per train average.
Wouldn't that be 24 trains both arriving and leaving London ever hour of the day ?
Given there's not much demand for trains in the middle of the night ...
If you think of how many times over the existing inter city network has paid for itself (mostly built between 1840 and 1850) it should be obvious that this is a good investment. I don't put much weight on conventional cost benefit analysis because of the way future benefits are discounted. Cost benefit analysis of the current network in 1840 would have put zero weight on the benefits we are getting out of it now, because of how benefits 180 years in the future are discounted. HS2 is a project for our great grandchildren.2 -
We took the family to Bellagio many years ago and it was magical.malcolmg said:
Which is best then Como or GardaCarlottaVance said:W
Sorry - “Bellagio” not Bergamo (which is an historic town too, but not on Lake Como, And is the airport RyanAir fly to).malcolmg said:
Thank youCarlottaVance said:
Another tip would be to stay in Bergamo rather than visit it - it’s swamped with (other!) tourists during the day, but evenings, after the last boats have departed and early mornings before they arrive are delightful. During the day get out of town and go for a walk in the surrounding countryside.malcolmg said:
ThanksCyclefree said:
A month or so later might be better ie April / May / early June. You will likely still get rain and cooler days in March. But if you’re walking best not to have it too hot anyway. There are some lovely smaller and less well-know lakes to visit as well.malcolmg said:
what is best time to visit , like it pleasant but not too hot. Was thinking of going next Marc/April time.Cyclefree said:
The whole area is beautiful and there are some lovely town to see as well - Bergamo, for instance. Nice wines too.DavidL said:
I was at lake Garda 2 years ago. It was brilliant. Pretty vigorous walking though. Rarely seen such steep hills.Cyclefree said:I see that Mrs May has gone on a Cyclefree style holiday in Lake Garda. A beautiful place. Sensible woman.
How soon can we start missing her?!
https://lakecomotravel.com/bellagio/
So much so my daughter and her husband revisited it before their family came along
I believe Lake Garda is lovely too but as all our family love all things Italy either destination would be a good holiday choice0 -
A thought provoking header, thank you.
A different idea would be to include the name (and party affiliation) of a Deputy on the nomination paper who could step in and perform the MPs duties for such time as the elected MP is signed-off by the HoC doctor.
My business became very tough in the aftermath of the 2008 crash and I had to take contracts for which I increasingly felt unqualified (imposter syndrome + anxiety attacks, not a good combination). Eventually, it ended with me suddenly curling up into a ball and crying uncontrollably whilst out in a walk. A superbly understanding wife, medication for a few months and therapy got me back to work, albeit less pressurised, for a few years before being able to retire to the Yorkshire Dales.
I was lucky in that people around me were understanding and loving and gave me space to recover; I’m sure that uncontrolled drinking and possibly just running away entirely would have happened without the support. I wouldn’t begrudge any MP knowing that a Deputy could step in should they be in similar straits.
Edited to add “on the nomination paper”0 -
Probably. People tend to like their kids more than their parents.dixiedean said:
I find I have much more in common with them than with the preceding generation. Was it always so?OnlyLivingBoy said:
I don't have a problem with millenials, they are more sinned against than sinners.dixiedean said:
The millennials and boomers would do well to remember there is a generation in between them which isn't particularly enamoured of either of them.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Was at a comedy event last night where one of the comedians (millennial) eviscerated the boomers. As a gen-xer I felt like a non combatant but it was biting and very funny. There is a lot of anger out there at the postwar generation. Not all of it's fair. But most of it is.Beibheirli_C said:
Largely true I suspect. I have come to the conclusion that many of that generation (the Baby Boomers) are possibly amongst the most selfish ever born. Free healthcare, free education, excellent pension schemes, high levels of employment, good housing, etc and then they pull the ladders up behind them and demand an extra £350m a week for their healthcare and free TV licences.OldKingCole said:IIRC the generation, like mine and a bit older who actually lived through the war were/are Remainers. It's their younger brothers and sisters, brought up on the likes of Biggles and The Great Escape who are Leavers.
My sympathies are entirely with the under 40s0 -
I'd be interested to see the graph extended back to cover the period of the last Labour government. My interpretation is that.CarlottaVance said:
1. When Labour was in government they felt that they had to talk tough on immigration (and they acted tough in some respects such as refugees), but they would still be criticised by the Tory opposition for not being tough enough. So all the public hear is everyone agreeing that immigration is a bad thing and something has to be done to stop it.
2. When the Conservatives are in government Labour feel free to criticise them (in some respects) for being too harsh on immigration, and the people involved. So the public hear a more balanced debate and attitudes soften.0 -
With respect Justin I think you would accept treatment. The desire to live does not diminish with agejustin124 said:
It depends on the age at which such a blow strikes , I think. I am now a few weeks beyond my 65th birthday and am aware that I have now reached what was the average UK male life expectancy when Anthony Eden became PM in Spring 1955. Were I to be diagnosed with something really nasty such as you have referred to, I would decline treatment options such as chemotherapy. Were I still 40 or 45, I might well take a different view.StuartDickson said:
Similar experience here. My year battling cancer totally transformed my life. Especially during the diagnosis stage you radically reassess absolutely everything. But funnily enough, politics was one of the few aspects of my life that remained a constant. The difference with you Nick is probably because I was only under the misapprehension that it was terminal for a few days. Still a horrific experience: staring into the abyss.NickPalmer said:
Yes, it's an inspiring and thought-provoking case. I like to think that if I'd been Broughton I'd have defied the non-whip and insisted on voting - what a way to go out, unerringly defiant to the end. But...when I actually thought I had a terminal illness (wrong diagnosis, as it turned out), I found I no longer gave a hoot about politics - no longer my problem, etc. It was rather a nasty revelation for my self-image as a noble champion of the people type.david_herdson said:
It should be remembered that the Callaghan government fell because the PM ordered a terminally ill MP, Alfred Broughton, *not* to travel to Westminster (the fear was that the journey itself from Yorkshire might kill him - Broughton died five days later). Also, when the Labour whips requested a pair for Broughton, the Tory Chief Whip accurately replied that pairing was never a convention for confidence motions but then offered to abstain himself, believing that he had offered a commitment to his opposite number. This offer to commit career suicide was then refused by Labour. Nobler days.0 -
SandyRentool said:
Galloway?DavidL said:
Where's George when we need him?ydoethur said:
To misquote Blackadder, the next election will be fought on personalities, not issues. This is because neither leading candidate understands the issues, although they have several of them.Scott_P said:
Those of us who vote on the future of the country have a problem.0 -
Paul Scully has just been appointed deputy chair of the Conservative Party.0
-
Yet its me who has been proven right about the costs of HS2 whereas you've been proven wrong despite all your reading of the documents.JosiasJessop said:
I notice you don't respond to my points, either - namely that you're utterly clueless.another_richard said:
I notice you don't give a price at which you think HS2 would no longer be worthwhile.JosiasJessop said:
If you actually read reports (and as you've said in the past, you don't as you think you know best) then you'll know the justification has never changed. The entire driving force of the project from the beginning was capacity.another_richard said:Wasn't HS2 originally supposed to cost £30bn which has now morphed into £80bn ?
I wonder if the HS2 supporters could say what price is too high for HS2 ? Or is there no price which is too high ?
And I love the changing justification - its for faster travel, its to help the North, its to increase capacity, its to increase capacity around London, its for freight.
When the reasons for doing something keep changing the alarm bells start sounding.
You're right about how crap this country is at doing major projects - perhaps we should place a time limit on them, nothing which takes longer than a world war should be allowed. Anything else leads to ever lengthening costs.
But projects can have more than one benefit (and indeed, more than one disadvantage). And you are apparently clueless about how increasing capacity also allows an increase in capacity for freight on the other lines.
You are also being rather silly when suggesting a time limit on projects. What do you count in the time limit? When does a project start? Before the public inquiry? After? When the first shovel goes in the ground? What happens if that time period is broached? The project is abandoned?
Most of all, would you have classed the motorway network in that manner?
Admit it those who said that costs would inexorably rise have been proved right.
And they haven't been proved right: and certainly not for the right reasons. Creating random numbers - or believing those numbers when others create them - is not being right. You get your information from the anti-HS2 press, and not from actually reading documents. That makes you clueless.
So are you going to give a price at which you think HS2 would no longer be justified ?
Bit of an awkward one isn't it - give a low price and you risk it being exceeded by the next cost increase, give a high price and you look like a ra-ra boy with no concern about cost control.
And if you want a bit of advice might I suggest you get in touch with HS2 central and request some payment for the work you do on behalf of them here and I'm sure elsewhere. They've got billions available and I don't like to see hard work go unrewarded. 0 -
DecrepitJohnL said:
Walker was a spiv and black marketeer so his view might depend on whether he saw EU gangs as dangerous rivals or as useful smugglers and wholesalers of cheap cigarettes and other contraband.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Mainwaring would vote remain for head over heart reasons. Wilson is a smug elitist so would be for Remain. Pike would vote Remain because his Uncle Arthur (really his dad, right?) voted that way and because he is a bit of an idealist. Agreed Godfrey is a Remainer - he would see the EU as a way of everybody being nice and getting along. The rest would be Leavers, except for Walker who is an obvious non-voter.ydoethur said:
I have Mainwaring Leaver, Jones Leaver, Frazer Leaver, Hodges Leaver, Vicar Leaver, Verger Leaver.kinabalu said:Caught a bit of Dad's Army yesterday, by accident but ended up being sucked in. Not by the plot, silly and full of holes, but by the characters, Mainwaring, Wilson, Jones, Frazer etc. If you park the obvious concern over the outdated mores and the lack of diversity they are highly watchable. And it struck me that nobody has ever, at least not to my knowledge, speculated as to how each of them would have voted in the 2016 Referendum, ceteris paribus. So I decided to rectify this and I spent a 'very' (sorry Jacob) pleasant few minutes doing the exercise. Will not go through all the names (save to say that Mainwaring was passionate Leave and Wilson was prevaricating until polling day) but the result was nothing like 52/48 or 48/52. It was a Leave Landslide. And I do mean LANDSLIDE. Make of this what you will. Says something profound and important about Brexit? Or signifies absolutely nothing and thus a complete waste of time?
Then Godfrey Remainer, WAlker Remainer.
And Pike and Wilson as toss-ups.
Any differences?
"to stupid"SquareRoot said:
Pike is to stupid to have an opinion on anything. He would have done what "Uncle "Arthur told him to do.kinabalu said:I'll be back with the list. Pike was an interesting one.
☺
Roflcopter0 -
-
Having had, and been treated for and categorised as clear of, both bowel and prostate cancer in my 70's (and v. early 80's) I can assure you that it's well worth going on. Further, chemotherapy is not always as dramatic as is sometimes suggested in the media.Big_G_NorthWales said:
With respect Justin I think you would accept treatment. The desire to live does not diminish with agejustin124 said:
It depends on the age at which such a blow strikes , I think. I am now a few weeks beyond my 65th birthday and am aware that I have now reached what was the average UK male life expectancy when Anthony Eden became PM in Spring 1955. Were I to be diagnosed with something really nasty such as you have referred to, I would decline treatment options such as chemotherapy. Were I still 40 or 45, I might well take a different view.StuartDickson said:
Similar experience here. My year battling cancer totally transformed my life. Especially during the diagnosis stage you radically reassess absolutely everything. But funnily enough, politics was one of the few aspects of my life that remained a constant. The difference with you Nick is probably because I was only under the misapprehension that it was terminal for a few days. Still a horrific experience: staring into the abyss.NickPalmer said:
Yes, it's an inspiring and thought-provoking case. I like to think that if I'd been Broughton I'd have defied the non-whip and insisted on voting - what a way to go out, unerringly defiant to the end. But...when I actually thought I had a terminal illness (wrong diagnosis, as it turned out), I found I no longer gave a hoot about politics - no longer my problem, etc. It was rather a nasty revelation for my self-image as a noble champion of the people type.david_herdson said:
It should be remembered that the Callaghan government fell because the PM ordered a terminally ill MP, Alfred Broughton, *not* to travel to Westminster (the fear was that the journey itself from Yorkshire might kill him - Broughton died five days later). Also, when the Labour whips requested a pair for Broughton, the Tory Chief Whip accurately replied that pairing was never a convention for confidence motions but then offered to abstain himself, believing that he had offered a commitment to his opposite number. This offer to commit career suicide was then refused by Labour. Nobler days.0 -
Labour certainly too high, Con could be lower too, but equally if there is a Boris bounce well above Labour.Theuniondivvie said:Is this PB Penddu?
https://twitter.com/Penddu2/status/1155414873263812614?s=200 -
There doesn't seem to be an inflection point around the time of the referendumJohnLilburne said:
Or people now take a more positive view of immigration, now we are leaving the EU and can set our own policyNigelb said:
So if Cameron hadn’t been in quite such a rush to hold the referendum ...?CarlottaVance said:0 -
Making predictions on that level of timescale is 'brave'.OnlyLivingBoy said:
300k per day sounds right, 48 trains per hour sounds wrong, especially as the capacity of the trains would be way higher than 300 passengers.another_richard said:
That sounds ambitious.rottenborough said:
300,000 passengers per day according to HS2 themselves.Pulpstar said:What's the projected demand for HS2 in say 100 passenger miles/year ?
What surcharge would be needed to tickets to get say a 30 year payback on construction costs ?
The plan is 48 trains per hour across the network. If the service runs say 20 hours a day then I make that ≈ 300 passengers per train average.
Wouldn't that be 24 trains both arriving and leaving London ever hour of the day ?
Given there's not much demand for trains in the middle of the night ...
If you think of how many times over the existing inter city network has paid for itself (mostly built between 1840 and 1850) it should be obvious that this is a good investment. I don't put much weight on conventional cost benefit analysis because of the way future benefits are discounted. Cost benefit analysis of the current network in 1840 would have put zero weight on the benefits we are getting out of it now, because of how benefits 180 years in the future are discounted. HS2 is a project for our great grandchildren.
Or perhaps not as we'll be long gone by then. 0 -
No - I have formed a very clear view on this. Longevity is not everything , and until the last couple of generations 65 would have been seen as a pretty good age - indeed in many parts of the world it still is! My personal belief system is also a factor - but there does come a point when some people begin to feel left behind by others who have already passed on. I feel I have now reached that position - being aware of many who have not reached my age - both people I have personally known and others from the political and wider celebrity world. Just to take politics - I think of John Smith- Hugh Gaitskell - Iain Macleod - Donald Dewar - Robin Cook - John Mackintosh - David Penhaligon.Big_G_NorthWales said:
With respect Justin I think you would accept treatment. The desire to live does not diminish with agejustin124 said:
It depends on the age at which such a blow strikes , I think. I am now a few weeks beyond my 65th birthday and am aware that I have now reached what was the average UK male life expectancy when Anthony Eden became PM in Spring 1955. Were I to be diagnosed with something really nasty such as you have referred to, I would decline treatment options such as chemotherapy. Were I still 40 or 45, I might well take a different view.StuartDickson said:
Similar experience here. My year battling cancer totally transformed my life. Especially during the diagnosis stage you radically reassess absolutely everything. But funnily enough, politics was one of the few aspects of my life that remained a constant. The difference with you Nick is probably because I was only under the misapprehension that it was terminal for a few days. Still a horrific experience: staring into the abyss.NickPalmer said:
Yes, it's an inspiring and thought-provoking case. I like to think that if I'd been Broughton I'd have defied the non-whip and insisted on voting - what a way to go out, unerringly defiant to the end. But...when I actually thought I had a terminal illness (wrong diagnosis, as it turned out), I found I no longer gave a hoot about politics - no longer my problem, etc. It was rather a nasty revelation for my self-image as a noble champion of the people type.david_herdson said:0 -
Brecon update: the BXP may not be canvassing or delivering, but they are direct mailing voters. Their efforts, and some unhappy Tory remainers I have spoken to today, make me happier about LD prospects. I think Mike’s 50%+ looks optimistic.1
-
...down to fat fingers rather than anything else.PeterMannion said:DecrepitJohnL said:
Walker was a spiv and black marketeer so his view might depend on whether he saw EU gangs as dangerous rivals or as useful smugglers and wholesalers of cheap cigarettes and other contraband.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Mainwaring would vote remain for head over heart reasons. Wilson is a smug elitist so would be for Remain. Pike would vote Remain because his Uncle Arthur (really his dad, right?) voted that way and because he is a bit of an idealist. Agreed Godfrey is a Remainer - he would see the EU as a way of everybody being nice and getting along. The rest would be Leavers, except for Walker who is an obvious non-voter.ydoethur said:
I have Mainwaring Leaver, Jones Leaver, Frazer Leaver, Hodges Leaver, Vicar Leaver, Verger Leaver.kinabalu said:Caught a bit of Dad's Army yesterday, by accident but ended up being sucked in. Not by the plot, silly and full of holes, but by the characters, Mainwaring, Wilson, Jones, Frazer etc. If you park the obvious concern over the outdated mores and the lack of diversity they are highly watchable. And it struck me that nobody has ever, at least not to my knowledge, speculated as to how each of them would have voted in the 2016 Referendum, ceteris paribus. So I decided to rectify this and I spent a 'very' (sorry Jacob) pleasant few minutes doing the exercise. Will not go through all the names (save to say that Mainwaring was passionate Leave and Wilson was prevaricating until polling day) but the result was nothing like 52/48 or 48/52. It was a Leave Landslide. And I do mean LANDSLIDE. Make of this what you will. Says something profound and important about Brexit? Or signifies absolutely nothing and thus a complete waste of time?
Then Godfrey Remainer, WAlker Remainer.
And Pike and Wilson as toss-ups.
Any differences?
"to stupid"SquareRoot said:
Pike is to stupid to have an opinion on anything. He would have done what "Uncle "Arthur told him to do.kinabalu said:I'll be back with the list. Pike was an interesting one.
☺
Roflcopter0 -
They actually say "up to 48 trains" to be honest.OnlyLivingBoy said:
300k per day sounds right, 48 trains per hour sounds wrong, especially as the capacity of the trains would be way higher than 300 passengers.another_richard said:
That sounds ambitious.rottenborough said:
300,000 passengers per day according to HS2 themselves.Pulpstar said:What's the projected demand for HS2 in say 100 passenger miles/year ?
What surcharge would be needed to tickets to get say a 30 year payback on construction costs ?
The plan is 48 trains per hour across the network. If the service runs say 20 hours a day then I make that ≈ 300 passengers per train average.
Wouldn't that be 24 trains both arriving and leaving London ever hour of the day ?
Given there's not much demand for trains in the middle of the night ...
If you think of how many times over the existing inter city network has paid for itself (mostly built between 1840 and 1850) it should be obvious that this is a good investment. I don't put much weight on conventional cost benefit analysis because of the way future benefits are discounted. Cost benefit analysis of the current network in 1840 would have put zero weight on the benefits we are getting out of it now, because of how benefits 180 years in the future are discounted. HS2 is a project for our great grandchildren.
And I guess not every train will go all way to London? Some will be say Leeds to Birmingham (when that is built).
The tendering process for rolling stock is based around 54 trains.0 -
+1Big_G_NorthWales said:
With respect Justin I think you would accept treatment. The desire to live does not diminish with agejustin124 said:
It depends on the age at which such a blow strikes , I think. I am now a few weeks beyond my 65th birthday and am aware that I have now reached what was the average UK male life expectancy when Anthony Eden became PM in Spring 1955. Were I to be diagnosed with something really nasty such as you have referred to, I would decline treatment options such as chemotherapy. Were I still 40 or 45, I might well take a different view.StuartDickson said:
Similar experience here. My year battling cancer totally transformed my life. Especially during the diagnosis stage you radically reassess absolutely everything. But funnily enough, politics was one of the few aspects of my life that remained a constant. The difference with you Nick is probably because I was only under the misapprehension that it was terminal for a few days. Still a horrific experience: staring into the abyss.NickPalmer said:
Yes, it's an inspiring and thought-provoking case. I like to think that if I'd been Broughton I'd have defied the non-whip and insisted on voting - what a way to go out, unerringly defiant to the end. But...when I actually thought I had a terminal illness (wrong diagnosis, as it turned out), I found I no longer gave a hoot about politics - no longer my problem, etc. It was rather a nasty revelation for my self-image as a noble champion of the people type.david_herdson said:
It should be remembered that the Callaghan government fell because the PM ordered a terminally ill MP, Alfred Broughton, *not* to travel to Westminster (the fear was that the journey itself from Yorkshire might kill him - Broughton died five days later). Also, when the Labour whips requested a pair for Broughton, the Tory Chief Whip accurately replied that pairing was never a convention for confidence motions but then offered to abstain himself, believing that he had offered a commitment to his opposite number. This offer to commit career suicide was then refused by Labour. Nobler days.0 -
Heavy rain in Germany for the F1 race. Bet accordingly (or not at all, it could be a lottery!).0
-
You haven't been proven right. You've given a whole load of figures in the past that have been plucked out of your (or more accurately, someone else's) backside. You;re utterly biased against the project, and only believe the stuff the anti- side says before spewing it on here.another_richard said:
Yet its me who has been proven right about the costs of HS2 whereas you've been proven wrong despite all your reading of the documents.
So are you going to give a price at which you think HS2 would no longer be justified ?
Bit of an awkward one isn't it - give a low price and you risk it being exceeded by the next cost increase, give a high price and you look like a ra-ra boy with no concern about cost control.
And if you want a bit of advice might I suggest you get in touch with HS2 central and request some payment for the work you do on behalf of them here and I'm sure elsewhere. They've got billions available and I don't like to see hard work go unrewarded.
And responding to your accusation: I've never been paid for HS2, and probably never will be. I don't particularly want to be either. I've read up a heck of a lot on the project, and can see why it is needed. In the past I've said what might kill the project, and have criticised it.
But at least I've read up on it.
Unlike you, who as an example still thinks it's all about 'saving a few minutes'.0 -
I can - of course - only speak for myself , though I am aware of medical professionals who hold similar views.SquareRoot said:
+1Big_G_NorthWales said:
With respect Justin I think you would accept treatment. The desire to live does not diminish with agejustin124 said:
It depends on the age at which such a blow strikes , I think. I am now a few weeks beyond my 65th birthday and am aware that I have now reached what was the average UK male life expectancy when Anthony Eden became PM in Spring 1955. Were I to be diagnosed with something really nasty such as you have referred to, I would decline treatment options such as chemotherapy. Were I still 40 or 45, I might well take a different view.StuartDickson said:
Similar experience here. My year battling cancer totally transformed my life. Especially during the diagnosis stage you radically reassess absolutely everything. But funnily enough, politics was one of the few aspects of my life that remained a constant. The difference with you Nick is probably because I was only under the misapprehension that it was terminal for a few days. Still a horrific experience: staring into the abyss.NickPalmer said:
Yes, it's an inspiring and thought-provoking case. I like to think that if I'd been Broughton I'd have defied the non-whip and insisted on voting - what a way to go out, unerringly defiant to the end. But...when I actually thought I had a terminal illness (wrong diagnosis, as it turned out), I found I no longer gave a hoot about politics - no longer my problem, etc. It was rather a nasty revelation for my self-image as a noble champion of the people type.david_herdson said:
It should be remembered that the Callaghan government fell because the PM ordered a terminally ill MP, Alfred Broughton, *not* to travel to Westminster (the fear was that the journey itself from Yorkshire might kill him - Broughton died five days later). Also, when the Labour whips requested a pair for Broughton, the Tory Chief Whip accurately replied that pairing was never a convention for confidence motions but then offered to abstain himself, believing that he had offered a commitment to his opposite number. This offer to commit career suicide was then refused by Labour. Nobler days.0 -
Thanks.IanB2 said:Brecon update: the BXP may not be canvassing or delivering, but they are direct mailing voters. Their efforts, and some unhappy Tory remainers I have spoken to today, make me happier about LD prospects. I think Mike’s 50%+ looks optimistic.
0 -
yet infrastructure means we need to make predictions on that sort of timescale. And that's the bind.another_richard said:
Making predictions on that level of timescale is 'brave'.OnlyLivingBoy said:
300k per day sounds right, 48 trains per hour sounds wrong, especially as the capacity of the trains would be way higher than 300 passengers.another_richard said:
That sounds ambitious.rottenborough said:
300,000 passengers per day according to HS2 themselves.Pulpstar said:What's the projected demand for HS2 in say 100 passenger miles/year ?
What surcharge would be needed to tickets to get say a 30 year payback on construction costs ?
The plan is 48 trains per hour across the network. If the service runs say 20 hours a day then I make that ≈ 300 passengers per train average.
Wouldn't that be 24 trains both arriving and leaving London ever hour of the day ?
Given there's not much demand for trains in the middle of the night ...
If you think of how many times over the existing inter city network has paid for itself (mostly built between 1840 and 1850) it should be obvious that this is a good investment. I don't put much weight on conventional cost benefit analysis because of the way future benefits are discounted. Cost benefit analysis of the current network in 1840 would have put zero weight on the benefits we are getting out of it now, because of how benefits 180 years in the future are discounted. HS2 is a project for our great grandchildren.
Or perhaps not as we'll be long gone by then.
You evidently don't want any new infrastructure, as you make demands that are impossible to meet for any projects of size. Any infrastructure project is a gamble; yet IMV the country has been held back by not making large infrastructure investments, or reducing them (e.g. building the M5 to two lanes).1 -
Should be exciting. Shame I can't watch it live.Sandpit said:Heavy rain in Germany for the F1 race. Bet accordingly (or not at all, it could be a lottery!).
Oh well, there's always the radio ...0 -
What about postal ballots already sent ?IanB2 said:Brecon update: the BXP may not be canvassing or delivering, but they are direct mailing voters. Their efforts, and some unhappy Tory remainers I have spoken to today, make me happier about LD prospects. I think Mike’s 50%+ looks optimistic.
0 -
What about them?surbiton19 said:
What about postal ballots already sent ?IanB2 said:Brecon update: the BXP may not be canvassing or delivering, but they are direct mailing voters. Their efforts, and some unhappy Tory remainers I have spoken to today, make me happier about LD prospects. I think Mike’s 50%+ looks optimistic.
0 -
Of course the Brexit Party's helpful, but amateurishly mismanaged, intervention, means the LibDems don't need 50%+.rottenborough said:
Thanks.IanB2 said:Brecon update: the BXP may not be canvassing or delivering, but they are direct mailing voters. Their efforts, and some unhappy Tory remainers I have spoken to today, make me happier about LD prospects. I think Mike’s 50%+ looks optimistic.
If Farage's blundering gets the Brexit share down from its 40% at the Euros to 20%, the Tory vote falls to high 20's at best.
SO kind of the country's favourite pub bore to make life easier for us0 -
The real reason ? Oldies are dying. The younger generation are far less critical of immigrants. They have known since they were at primary school.OblitusSumMe said:
I'd be interested to see the graph extended back to cover the period of the last Labour government. My interpretation is that.CarlottaVance said:
1. When Labour was in government they felt that they had to talk tough on immigration (and they acted tough in some respects such as refugees), but they would still be criticised by the Tory opposition for not being tough enough. So all the public hear is everyone agreeing that immigration is a bad thing and something has to be done to stop it.
2. When the Conservatives are in government Labour feel free to criticise them (in some respects) for being too harsh on immigration, and the people involved. So the public hear a more balanced debate and attitudes soften.
0 -
From memory, each train is meant to have a capacity over a little over 1,000 passengers. As a comparison, the Pendolino trains that currently run high-speed services on that route have a maximum of 600.rottenborough said:
They actually say "up to 48 trains" to be honest.OnlyLivingBoy said:
300k per day sounds right, 48 trains per hour sounds wrong, especially as the capacity of the trains would be way higher than 300 passengers.another_richard said:
That sounds ambitious.rottenborough said:
300,000 passengers per day according to HS2 themselves.Pulpstar said:What's the projected demand for HS2 in say 100 passenger miles/year ?
What surcharge would be needed to tickets to get say a 30 year payback on construction costs ?
The plan is 48 trains per hour across the network. If the service runs say 20 hours a day then I make that ≈ 300 passengers per train average.
Wouldn't that be 24 trains both arriving and leaving London ever hour of the day ?
Given there's not much demand for trains in the middle of the night ...
If you think of how many times over the existing inter city network has paid for itself (mostly built between 1840 and 1850) it should be obvious that this is a good investment. I don't put much weight on conventional cost benefit analysis because of the way future benefits are discounted. Cost benefit analysis of the current network in 1840 would have put zero weight on the benefits we are getting out of it now, because of how benefits 180 years in the future are discounted. HS2 is a project for our great grandchildren.
And I guess not every train will go all way to London? Some will be say Leeds to Birmingham (when that is built).
The tendering process for rolling stock is based around 54 trains.
And yes, there are other traffic flows that are not into London (e.g. into Birmingham).
One of the things I dislike about the project is that Birmingham is a dead-end terminus. I'd have preferred it to be a through station - though that would have been massively expensive to do and would have lengthened journey times from London to Leeds and Yorkshire.0 -
Both are great. Como is beautiful and more exclusive. Garda is also beautiful, larger, with more to do, and much busierBig_G_NorthWales said:
We took the family to Bellagio many years ago and it was magical.malcolmg said:
Which is best then Como or GardaCarlottaVance said:W
Sorry - “Bellagio” not Bergamo (which is an historic town too, but not on Lake Como, And is the airport RyanAir fly to).malcolmg said:
Thank youCarlottaVance said:
Another tip would be to stay in Bergamo rather than visit it - it’s swamped with (other!) tourists during the day, but evenings, after the last boats have departed and early mornings before they arrive are delightful. During the day get out of town and go for a walk in the surrounding countryside.malcolmg said:
ThanksCyclefree said:
A month or so later might be better ie April / May / early June. You will likely still get rain and cooler days in March. But if you’re walking best not to have it too hot anyway. There are some lovely smaller and less well-know lakes to visit as well.malcolmg said:
what is best time to visit , like it pleasant but not too hot. Was thinking of going next Marc/April time.Cyclefree said:
The whole area is beautiful and there are some lovely town to see as well - Bergamo, for instance. Nice wines too.DavidL said:
I was at lake Garda 2 years ago. It was brilliant. Pretty vigorous walking though. Rarely seen such steep hills.Cyclefree said:I see that Mrs May has gone on a Cyclefree style holiday in Lake Garda. A beautiful place. Sensible woman.
How soon can we start missing her?!
https://lakecomotravel.com/bellagio/
So much so my daughter and her husband revisited it before their family came along
I believe Lake Garda is lovely too but as all our family love all things Italy either destination would be a good holiday choice0 -
As far as Francois is concerned, we do not need anybody for negotiations. We are coming out on the 31st October. Period. In fact, why wait until then ?Scott_P said:
0 -
HuffPost: Every single one of us despises the tories and think brexit voters are Neanderthal thick racists. But we are professionalS and never let it interfere with our editorial output.Scott_P said:
Lol.1 -
If it were that simple then extending the chart would see the same trend in the years of the Labour government, but my argument would imply that the trend was then in the opposite direction.surbiton19 said:
The real reason ? Oldies are dying. The younger generation are far less critical of immigrants. They have known since they were at primary school.OblitusSumMe said:
I'd be interested to see the graph extended back to cover the period of the last Labour government. My interpretation is that.CarlottaVance said:
1. When Labour was in government they felt that they had to talk tough on immigration (and they acted tough in some respects such as refugees), but they would still be criticised by the Tory opposition for not being tough enough. So all the public hear is everyone agreeing that immigration is a bad thing and something has to be done to stop it.
2. When the Conservatives are in government Labour feel free to criticise them (in some respects) for being too harsh on immigration, and the people involved. So the public hear a more balanced debate and attitudes soften.0 -
Francois = Napoleonsurbiton19 said:
As far as Francois is concerned, we do not need anybody for negotiations. We are coming out on the 31st October. Period. In fact, why wait until then ?Scott_P said:0 -
Remember, the biggest cost is the purchase of land. This does not depreciate. Why not calculate a payback of 100 years for this element ? Also, use the unused part of the land for solar panels, fibre optic , whatever.Pulpstar said:What's the projected demand for HS2 in say 100 passenger miles/year ?
What surcharge would be needed to tickets to get say a 30 year payback on construction costs ?
1 -
Sounds reasonable to me.surbiton19 said:
Remember, the biggest cost is the purchase of land. This does not depreciate. Why not calculate a payback of 100 years for this element ? Also, use the unused part of the land for solar panels, fibre optic , whatever.Pulpstar said:What's the projected demand for HS2 in say 100 passenger miles/year ?
What surcharge would be needed to tickets to get say a 30 year payback on construction costs ?0 -
More anecdata to add to the theory that the BP isn't going to win a Westminster election any time soon. They don't have any kind of local organisation, and don't seem too keen on doing the hard yards of creating one.
Peterborough was their big chance. They missed, then threw a tantrum, and a string of unfounded allegations of cheating.
B+R ought to have been a chance too. With a convicted criminal as the only other leaver. But they appear to be headed for third.0 -
Crossrail hasn't even opened yet - which century will see HS2 open?
0 -
Does it hurt you that much that I've been proved right that the costs would rise ?JosiasJessop said:
You haven't been proven right. You've given a whole load of figures in the past that have been plucked out of your (or more accurately, someone else's) backside. You;re utterly biased against the project, and only believe the stuff the anti- side says before spewing it on here.another_richard said:
Yet its me who has been proven right about the costs of HS2 whereas you've been proven wrong despite all your reading of the documents.
So are you going to give a price at which you think HS2 would no longer be justified ?
Bit of an awkward one isn't it - give a low price and you risk it being exceeded by the next cost increase, give a high price and you look like a ra-ra boy with no concern about cost control.
And if you want a bit of advice might I suggest you get in touch with HS2 central and request some payment for the work you do on behalf of them here and I'm sure elsewhere. They've got billions available and I don't like to see hard work go unrewarded.
And responding to your accusation: I've never been paid for HS2, and probably never will be. I don't particularly want to be either. I've read up a heck of a lot on the project, and can see why it is needed. In the past I've said what might kill the project, and have criticised it.
But at least I've read up on it.
Unlike you, who as an example still thinks it's all about 'saving a few minutes'.
I'm not taking any credit for being right and am rather saddened - if HS2 could have been done on time and in budget I would have had no complaints. But it wont be and my scepticism has been shown to be correct. It would be nice to be surprised on the positive side occasionally but this country seems unable to do big infrastructure projects well.
If you actually read what I wrote you will see I was pointing out the shifting justification for HS2 from the 'quicker trains' to 'boost the North' to 'increase capacity'. Not my justifications but those used by HS2 supporters.
Nor did I make any accusation but rather a friendly suggestion - PB is full of enthusiasts for various things who do a better job at explaining them than the people who are paid to do so and as I said I like to see hard work rewarded.
I see you still wont give a price at which you think HS2 would no longer be justified.
Very revealing.0 -
It is a white elephant that will take 15 minutes off a journey for people to London, feck all benefit for most of the country and 100 billion down the tubes. Should never have been started and sooner it is scrapped the better. Spend some money outside London might be a novel thought.Philip_Thompson said:
If capacity is an issue then it won't just be surcharge needed? Generic charges alone would also pay towards construction costs.Pulpstar said:What's the projected demand for HS2 in say 100 passenger miles/year ?
What surcharge would be needed to tickets to get say a 30 year payback on construction costs ?0 -
Corbynista still attacking Swinson over Coalition. They really are rattled aren't they.0
-
If you create local organisation then you create stuff Farage can't run and control. Why would he want that?dixiedean said:More anecdata to add to the theory that the BP isn't going to win a Westminster election any time soon. They don't have any kind of local organisation, and don't seem too keen on doing the hard yards of creating one.
Peterborough was their big chance. They missed, then threw a tantrum, and a string of unfounded allegations of cheating.
B+R ought to have been a chance too. With a convicted criminal as the only other leaver. But they appear to be headed for third.0 -
We should be building a country fit for our grandchildren and their children. It amazes me that so many on the right claim to love their country so much, but won't put their hands in their pockets to build its future.another_richard said:
Making predictions on that level of timescale is 'brave'.OnlyLivingBoy said:
300k per day sounds right, 48 trains per hour sounds wrong, especially as the capacity of the trains would be way higher than 300 passengers.another_richard said:
That sounds ambitious.rottenborough said:
300,000 passengers per day according to HS2 themselves.Pulpstar said:What's the projected demand for HS2 in say 100 passenger miles/year ?
What surcharge would be needed to tickets to get say a 30 year payback on construction costs ?
The plan is 48 trains per hour across the network. If the service runs say 20 hours a day then I make that ≈ 300 passengers per train average.
Wouldn't that be 24 trains both arriving and leaving London ever hour of the day ?
Given there's not much demand for trains in the middle of the night ...
If you think of how many times over the existing inter city network has paid for itself (mostly built between 1840 and 1850) it should be obvious that this is a good investment. I don't put much weight on conventional cost benefit analysis because of the way future benefits are discounted. Cost benefit analysis of the current network in 1840 would have put zero weight on the benefits we are getting out of it now, because of how benefits 180 years in the future are discounted. HS2 is a project for our great grandchildren.
Or perhaps not as we'll be long gone by then.1 -
Thanks GBig_G_NorthWales said:
We took the family to Bellagio many years ago and it was magical.malcolmg said:
Which is best then Como or GardaCarlottaVance said:W
Sorry - “Bellagio” not Bergamo (which is an historic town too, but not on Lake Como, And is the airport RyanAir fly to).malcolmg said:
Thank youCarlottaVance said:
Another tip would be to stay in Bergamo rather than visit it - it’s swamped with (other!) tourists during the day, but evenings, after the last boats have departed and early mornings before they arrive are delightful. During the day get out of town and go for a walk in the surrounding countryside.malcolmg said:
ThanksCyclefree said:
A month or so later might be better ie April / May / early June. You will likely still get rain and cooler days in March. But if you’re walking best not to have it too hot anyway. There are some lovely smaller and less well-know lakes to visit as well.malcolmg said:
what is best time to visit , like it pleasant but not too hot. Was thinking of going next Marc/April time.Cyclefree said:
The whole area is beautiful and there are some lovely town to see as well - Bergamo, for instance. Nice wines too.DavidL said:
I was at lake Garda 2 years ago. It was brilliant. Pretty vigorous walking though. Rarely seen such steep hills.Cyclefree said:I see that Mrs May has gone on a Cyclefree style holiday in Lake Garda. A beautiful place. Sensible woman.
How soon can we start missing her?!
https://lakecomotravel.com/bellagio/
So much so my daughter and her husband revisited it before their family came along
I believe Lake Garda is lovely too but as all our family love all things Italy either destination would be a good holiday choice0 -
Incidentally, this is an example of the superiority of our Parliamentary system over a Presidential system. If we had an elected President with executive powers (as opposed to a figurehead) then it would be much easier for a charlatan like Farage to take over.OblitusSumMe said:
If you create local organisation then you create stuff Farage can't run and control. Why would he want that?dixiedean said:More anecdata to add to the theory that the BP isn't going to win a Westminster election any time soon. They don't have any kind of local organisation, and don't seem too keen on doing the hard yards of creating one.
Peterborough was their big chance. They missed, then threw a tantrum, and a string of unfounded allegations of cheating.
B+R ought to have been a chance too. With a convicted criminal as the only other leaver. But they appear to be headed for third.0 -
Cheers IanIanB2 said:
Both are great. Como is beautiful and more exclusive. Garda is also beautiful, larger, with more to do, and much busierBig_G_NorthWales said:
We took the family to Bellagio many years ago and it was magical.malcolmg said:
Which is best then Como or GardaCarlottaVance said:W
Sorry - “Bellagio” not Bergamo (which is an historic town too, but not on Lake Como, And is the airport RyanAir fly to).malcolmg said:
Thank youCarlottaVance said:
Another tip would be to stay in Bergamo rather than visit it - it’s swamped with (other!) tourists during the day, but evenings, after the last boats have departed and early mornings before they arrive are delightful. During the day get out of town and go for a walk in the surrounding countryside.malcolmg said:
ThanksCyclefree said:
A month or so later might be better ie April / May / early June. You will likely still get rain and cooler days in March. But if you’re walking best not to have it too hot anyway. There are some lovely smaller and less well-know lakes to visit as well.malcolmg said:
what is best time to visit , like it pleasant but not too hot. Was thinking of going next Marc/April time.Cyclefree said:
The whole area is beautiful and there are some lovely town to see as well - Bergamo, for instance. Nice wines too.DavidL said:
I was at lake Garda 2 years ago. It was brilliant. Pretty vigorous walking though. Rarely seen such steep hills.Cyclefree said:I see that Mrs May has gone on a Cyclefree style holiday in Lake Garda. A beautiful place. Sensible woman.
How soon can we start missing her?!
https://lakecomotravel.com/bellagio/
So much so my daughter and her husband revisited it before their family came along
I believe Lake Garda is lovely too but as all our family love all things Italy either destination would be a good holiday choice0 -
Yet without them the Conservatives might have won in Peterborough.dixiedean said:More anecdata to add to the theory that the BP isn't going to win a Westminster election any time soon. They don't have any kind of local organisation, and don't seem too keen on doing the hard yards of creating one.
Peterborough was their big chance. They missed, then threw a tantrum, and a string of unfounded allegations of cheating.
B+R ought to have been a chance too. With a convicted criminal as the only other leaver. But they appear to be headed for third.
Which would have boosted May and likely crippled Corbyn.
They've had an effect beyond resurrecting Widddywoman.0 -
It is entirely reasonable that they return the fire directed at themselves. Reminding left of centre voters of the record of the 'Tories' Little Helpers' is still likely to prove highly effective when the chips are down.rottenborough said:Corbynista still attacking Swinson over Coalition. They really are rattled aren't they.
0 -
If we did more big infrastructure projects we'd get better at them. We should have a 30 year pipeline of projects and train people up and invest in systems accordingly. That would bring the price down as well as reduce over runs.Sunil_Prasannan said:Crossrail hasn't even opened yet - which century will see HS2 open?
0 -
Leaving the politics aside, it's an interesting experiment to see if a professional political party putting a programme forward on a businesslike basis might be an alternative to activists. I don't like the idea much myself, but maybe it could work?dixiedean said:More anecdata to add to the theory that the BP isn't going to win a Westminster election any time soon. They don't have any kind of local organisation, and don't seem too keen on doing the hard yards of creating one.
Peterborough was their big chance. They missed, then threw a tantrum, and a string of unfounded allegations of cheating.
B+R ought to have been a chance too. With a convicted criminal as the only other leaver. But they appear to be headed for third.0 -
When the ORR evaluates open access applications for the conventional rail network they apply the 30p test. That is, for every pound taken from existing operators they need to generate 30p of new revenue. I wonder how long it would take for HS2 to pass this test.0
-
There's nothing stopping people getting their cheque book out if they want to provide some extra funding.OnlyLivingBoy said:
We should be building a country fit for our grandchildren and their children. It amazes me that so many on the right claim to love their country so much, but won't put their hands in their pockets to build its future.another_richard said:
Making predictions on that level of timescale is 'brave'.OnlyLivingBoy said:
300k per day sounds right, 48 trains per hour sounds wrong, especially as the capacity of the trains would be way higher than 300 passengers.another_richard said:
That sounds ambitious.rottenborough said:
300,000 passengers per day according to HS2 themselves.Pulpstar said:What's the projected demand for HS2 in say 100 passenger miles/year ?
What surcharge would be needed to tickets to get say a 30 year payback on construction costs ?
The plan is 48 trains per hour across the network. If the service runs say 20 hours a day then I make that ≈ 300 passengers per train average.
Wouldn't that be 24 trains both arriving and leaving London ever hour of the day ?
Given there's not much demand for trains in the middle of the night ...
If you think of how many times over the existing inter city network has paid for itself (mostly built between 1840 and 1850) it should be obvious that this is a good investment. I don't put much weight on conventional cost benefit analysis because of the way future benefits are discounted. Cost benefit analysis of the current network in 1840 would have put zero weight on the benefits we are getting out of it now, because of how benefits 180 years in the future are discounted. HS2 is a project for our great grandchildren.
Or perhaps not as we'll be long gone by then.
Send a payment here and I'm sure they'll appreciate it.
High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd
Two Snowhill
Snow Hill Queensway
Birmingham
B4 6GA
BTW the construction of new infrastructure is currently at about double the level of the Blair years.0 -
I've hurt my sides from laughing at your utter cluelessness.another_richard said:Does it hurt you that much that I've been proved right that the costs would rise ?
I'm not taking any credit for being right and am rather saddened - if HS2 could have been done on time and in budget I would have had no complaints. But it wont be and my scepticism has been shown to be correct. It would be nice to be surprised on the positive side occasionally but this country seems unable to do big infrastructure projects well.
If you actually read what I wrote you will see I was pointing out the shifting justification for HS2 from the 'quicker trains' to 'boost the North' to 'increase capacity'. Not my justifications but those used by HS2 supporters.
Nor did I make any accusation but rather a friendly suggestion - PB is full of enthusiasts for various things who do a better job at explaining them than the people who are paid to do so and as I said I like to see hard work rewarded.
I see you still wont give a price at which you think HS2 would no longer be justified.
Very revealing.
The justification was always mixed, but it was also mainly capacity: it is the antis who jumped on the time-saving benefits, as it seems such a small number.
If you read the original docs, the original question was about how to free up space on the congested WCML - especially as the WCML upgrade came up ~10 times over cost, and did not deliver any of its promised improvements. HS2 sprung out of that. (You also need to answer what we do if we don't do HS2 - what's your alternative?)
Let me ask you a question: with your utter cluelessness, how do you decide whether an anti-HS2 story you're inclined to agree with is bogus or not? Or do you just believe it all? For I see you have no background information on which to make such judgements.
I won't give you figures, as I'd be pulling them out of my arse as much as you are currently. It might also do you some good to see *why* they might be increasing, and compare with your previous thoughts. You might see that as revealing, but it's nowhere near as revealing as the fact you've admitted not reading documents if they may disagree with your flimsy, biased views.0 -
Would be too expensive, wouldn't it?Recidivist said:
Leaving the politics aside, it's an interesting experiment to see if a professional political party putting a programme forward on a businesslike basis might be an alternative to activists. I don't like the idea much myself, but maybe it could work?dixiedean said:More anecdata to add to the theory that the BP isn't going to win a Westminster election any time soon. They don't have any kind of local organisation, and don't seem too keen on doing the hard yards of creating one.
Peterborough was their big chance. They missed, then threw a tantrum, and a string of unfounded allegations of cheating.
B+R ought to have been a chance too. With a convicted criminal as the only other leaver. But they appear to be headed for third.0 -
Surely their argument is that 'traditional local organisations' are no longer appropriate. We live in a society which doesn't discuss matters with it's neighbours in the street, the pub or whatever, but on message boards, Facebook and the like.OblitusSumMe said:
If you create local organisation then you create stuff Farage can't run and control. Why would he want that?dixiedean said:More anecdata to add to the theory that the BP isn't going to win a Westminster election any time soon. They don't have any kind of local organisation, and don't seem too keen on doing the hard yards of creating one.
Peterborough was their big chance. They missed, then threw a tantrum, and a string of unfounded allegations of cheating.
B+R ought to have been a chance too. With a convicted criminal as the only other leaver. But they appear to be headed for third.0 -
So no price will ever be too high.JosiasJessop said:
I've hurt my sides from laughing at your utter cluelessness.another_richard said:Does it hurt you that much that I've been proved right that the costs would rise ?
I'm not taking any credit for being right and am rather saddened - if HS2 could have been done on time and in budget I would have had no complaints. But it wont be and my scepticism has been shown to be correct. It would be nice to be surprised on the positive side occasionally but this country seems unable to do big infrastructure projects well.
If you actually read what I wrote you will see I was pointing out the shifting justification for HS2 from the 'quicker trains' to 'boost the North' to 'increase capacity'. Not my justifications but those used by HS2 supporters.
Nor did I make any accusation but rather a friendly suggestion - PB is full of enthusiasts for various things who do a better job at explaining them than the people who are paid to do so and as I said I like to see hard work rewarded.
I see you still wont give a price at which you think HS2 would no longer be justified.
Very revealing.
The justification was always mixed, but it was also mainly capacity: it is the antis who jumped on the time-saving benefits, as it seems such a small number.
If you read the original docs, the original question was about how to free up space on the congested WCML - especially as the WCML upgrade came up ~10 times over cost, and did not deliver any of its promised improvements. HS2 sprung out of that. (You also need to answer what we do if we don't do HS2 - what's your alternative?)
Let me ask you a question: with your utter cluelessness, how do you decide whether an anti-HS2 story you're inclined to agree with is bogus or not? Or do you just believe it all? For I see you have no background information on which to make such judgements.
I won't give you figures, as I'd be pulling them out of my arse as much as you are currently. It might also do you some good to see *why* they might be increasing, and compare with your previous thoughts. You might see that as revealing, but it's nowhere near as revealing as the fact you've admitted not reading documents if they may disagree with your flimsy, biased views.
Sad but not surprising - its a feature of the modern world that people become more entrenched in their views even when the facts change.
My advice is to try a little scepticism, here's a good start:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/nils-pratley-on-finance/2019/jul/22/there-must-be-a-point-at-which-hs2-is-just-too-expensive0 -
You and I have different opinions on almost everything - but on this we agree completely.OnlyLivingBoy said:
If we did more big infrastructure projects we'd get better at them. We should have a 30 year pipeline of projects and train people up and invest in systems accordingly. That would bring the price down as well as reduce over runs.Sunil_Prasannan said:Crossrail hasn't even opened yet - which century will see HS2 open?
0 -
Just had a post come up on my Facebook page to the effect that Farage has been in the US raising funds for Brexit. If that isn't illegal, it ought to be.
Reminds me of the collection box I saw in an Irish bar in New Orleans 'Help the Boys Behind the Wire'!0 -
Maggioremalcolmg said:
Which is best then Como or GardaCarlottaVance said:W
Sorry - “Bellagio” not Bergamo (which is an historic town too, but not on Lake Como, And is the airport RyanAir fly to).malcolmg said:
Thank youCarlottaVance said:
Another tip would be to stay in Bergamo rather than visit it - it’s swamped with (other!) tourists during the day, but evenings, after the last boats have departed and early mornings before they arrive are delightful. During the day get out of town and go for a walk in the surrounding countryside.malcolmg said:
ThanksCyclefree said:
A month or so later might be better ie April / May / early June. You will likely still get rain and cooler days in March. But if you’re walking best not to have it too hot anyway. There are some lovely smaller and less well-know lakes to visit as well.malcolmg said:
what is best time to visit , like it pleasant but not too hot. Was thinking of going next Marc/April time.Cyclefree said:
The whole area is beautiful and there are some lovely town to see as well - Bergamo, for instance. Nice wines too.DavidL said:
I was at lake Garda 2 years ago. It was brilliant. Pretty vigorous walking though. Rarely seen such steep hills.Cyclefree said:I see that Mrs May has gone on a Cyclefree style holiday in Lake Garda. A beautiful place. Sensible woman.
How soon can we start missing her?!
https://lakecomotravel.com/bellagio/
(TBF I have not been to Garda or Como but Lake Maggiore is beautiful - I suspect they are all lovely.)
0 -
Now that's an epic tease.williamglenn said:
I find I prefer those 15 years older than 15 younger thoughOnlyLivingBoy said:
Probably. People tend to like their kids more than their parents.dixiedean said:
I find I have much more in common with them than with the preceding generation. Was it always so?OnlyLivingBoy said:
I don't have a problem with millenials, they are more sinned against than sinners.dixiedean said:
The millennials and boomers would do well to remember there is a generation in between them which isn't particularly enamoured of either of them.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Was at a comedy event last night where one of the comedians (millennial) eviscerated the boomers. As a gen-xer I felt like a non combatant but it was biting and very funny. There is a lot of anger out there at the postwar generation. Not all of it's fair. But most of it is.Beibheirli_C said:
Largely true I suspect. I have come to the conclusion that many of that generation (the Baby Boomers) are possibly amongst the most selfish ever born. Free healthcare, free education, excellent pension schemes, high levels of employment, good housing, etc and then they pull the ladders up behind them and demand an extra £350m a week for their healthcare and free TV licences.OldKingCole said:IIRC the generation, like mine and a bit older who actually lived through the war were/are Remainers. It's their younger brothers and sisters, brought up on the likes of Biggles and The Great Escape who are Leavers.
My sympathies are entirely with the under 40s0 -
Labour will no doubt try to keep the "Tories' Little Helpers" meme alive but imo it's likely to be drowned out by the Lib Dems highlighting Labour's own pitiful Brexit fence-sitting and anti-semitism records.justin124 said:
It is entirely reasonable that they return the fire directed at themselves. Reminding left of centre voters of the record of the 'Tories' Little Helpers' is still likely to prove highly effective when the chips are down.rottenborough said:Corbynista still attacking Swinson over Coalition. They really are rattled aren't they.
0 -
"So no price will ever be too high."another_richard said:
So no price will ever be too high.
Sad but not surprising - its a feature of the modern world that people become more entrenched in their views even when the facts change.
My advice is to try a little scepticism, here's a good start:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/nils-pratley-on-finance/2019/jul/22/there-must-be-a-point-at-which-hs2-is-just-too-expensive
Now you're making shit up. I never said that.
And again you show you're capable of reading anti stuff, but not pro stuff, because you sit in a little well of ignorance. If you hadn't noticed, I've posted negative stuff about HS2 - including stuff I don't like about it - in the past.
I'm amused that you of all people are suggesting that I read something, when you so steadfastly refuse to do the same. And for the record, I'd already seen that article.
It's sad but not surprising that you're clueless, and that your uninformed biases rule your head. So I ask you again: what is your alternative to HS2?0 -
We should simply list all the envisioned benefits - the nost optimistic projections. And then see if they are still worth 80bn.another_richard said:
Wasn't HS2 originally supposed to cost £30bn which has now morphed into £80bn ?Sandpit said:
Don’t forget freight, behind which lies a lot of the business case for HS2.JosiasJessop said:
HS2 makes sense IMO. Scrapping it does not.Luckyguy1983 said:
Chancellor is. Business Sec is not. It doesn't add up to scrapping it, though goodness knows it makes sense. Would certainly free up a lot of largesse for Boris' other projects.
It probably comes down to one main question: do you believe that the increase in passengers (especially long-distance) that the railways have seen over the last 25 years will continue for another decade or two? If it does, then the case for an HS2-style project is rather strong. If you do not, it is weaker.
That is the gamble. And the damned thing about it is that you cannot just wait and do it later: such infrastructure projects take so long that planning needs to be started decades in advance of the demand.
If we do not do it, the costs to the economy could be strong. Imagine if we'd not built the motorway network in the 1960s and 1970s (and even then we can argue it was done in a penny-pinching manner).
However the figures show a very strong growth in demand for railway papssenger traffic, even when new technologies such as the Internet have threatened the need for travel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Great_Britain#Annual_passenger_numbers
I completely dispair at attitudes to major infrastructure projects. Brunel build the Great Western railway in three years, from the enabling Act of Parliament to having the first train run from London to Bristol. With no machines. London’s airports came almost to a standstill last week, as a big thunderstorm scattered planes all over the country and there wasn’t enough capacity to deal with it.
I wonder if the HS2 supporters could say what price is too high for HS2 ? Or is there no price which is too high ?
And I love the changing justification - its for faster travel, its to help the North, its to increase capacity, its to increase capacity around London, its for freight.
When the reasons for doing something keep changing the alarm bells start sounding.
You're right about how crap this country is at doing major projects - perhaps we should place a time limit on them, nothing which takes longer than a world war should be allowed. Anything else leads to ever lengthening costs.
As a side note, how many enthusiastic supporters of HS2 are also enraged at the 'costs' of Brexit?0 -
To reverse that, how many people enraged at the cost of HS2 are perfectly happy to see Brexit cost many billions?Luckyguy1983 said:
We should simply list all the envisioned benefits - the nost optimistic projections. And then see if they are still worth 80bn.
As a side note, how many enthusiastic supporters of HS2 are also enraged at the 'costs' of Brexit?0 -
I'm inclined to think that HS2 is one of those things that just needs to be done.another_richard said:
So no price will ever be too high.JosiasJessop said:
I've hurt my sides from laughing at your utter cluelessness.another_richard said:Does it hurt you that much that I've been proved right that the costs would rise ?
I'm not taking any credit for being right and am rather saddened - if HS2 could have been done on time and in budget I would have had no complaints. But it wont be and my scepticism has been shown to be correct. It would be nice to be surprised on the positive side occasionally but this country seems unable to do big infrastructure projects well.
If you actually read what I wrote you will see I was pointing out the shifting justification for HS2 from the 'quicker trains' to 'boost the North' to 'increase capacity'. Not my justifications but those used by HS2 supporters.
Nor did I make any accusation but rather a friendly suggestion - PB is full of enthusiasts for various things who do a better job at explaining them than the people who are paid to do so and as I said I like to see hard work rewarded.
I see you still wont give a price at which you think HS2 would no longer be justified.
Very revealing.
The justification was always mixed, but it was also mainly capacity: it is the antis who jumped on the time-saving benefits, as it seems such a small number.
If you read the original docs, the original question was about how to free up space on the congested WCML - especially as the WCML upgrade came up ~10 times over cost, and did not deliver any of its promised improvements. HS2 sprung out of that. (You also need to answer what we do if we don't do HS2 - what's your alternative?)
Let me ask you a question: with your utter cluelessness, how do you decide whether an anti-HS2 story you're inclined to agree with is bogus or not? Or do you just believe it all? For I see you have no background information on which to make such judgements.
I won't give you figures, as I'd be pulling them out of my arse as much as you are currently. It might also do you some good to see *why* they might be increasing, and compare with your previous thoughts. You might see that as revealing, but it's nowhere near as revealing as the fact you've admitted not reading documents if they may disagree with your flimsy, biased views.
Sad but not surprising - its a feature of the modern world that people become more entrenched in their views even when the facts change.
My advice is to try a little scepticism, here's a good start:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/nils-pratley-on-finance/2019/jul/22/there-must-be-a-point-at-which-hs2-is-just-too-expensive
I think we probably need to look at the number of billions being spent on stuffing Nimby mouths with gold.0 -
I don't have to make shit up, I merely point out your refusal to give a price at which you think HS2 is no longer worth it.JosiasJessop said:
"So no price will ever be too high."another_richard said:
So no price will ever be too high.
Sad but not surprising - its a feature of the modern world that people become more entrenched in their views even when the facts change.
My advice is to try a little scepticism, here's a good start:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/nils-pratley-on-finance/2019/jul/22/there-must-be-a-point-at-which-hs2-is-just-too-expensive
Now you're making shit up. I never said that.
And again you show you're capable of reading anti stuff, but not pro stuff, because you sit in a little well of ignorance. If you hadn't noticed, I've posted negative stuff about HS2 - including stuff I don't like about it - in the past.
I'm amused that you of all people are suggesting that I read something, when you so steadfastly refuse to do the same. And for the record, I'd already seen that article.
It's sad but not surprising that you're clueless, and that your uninformed biases rule your head. So I ask you again: what is your alternative to HS2?
Now if you want to give a price at which you think HS2 is no longer worth it then you're free to do so.
But I sense that would require a little more open mindedness than you're willing to have on this issue.
Its being open minded and sceptical of what vested interests claim which has led to me being right that the costs of HS2 would go up and up and up.0
